1973-06-28

POINT OF ORDER RESPECTING TABLING OF DOCUMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 41(2)-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday, on motions, the hon. Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) proposed, under Standing Order 41(2), to table a document entitled: "Government of Canada Review of the Canadian Transport Commission Decision of March 30, 1973 on Bell Canada's Application "A".
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) objected to this procedure, alleging that the minister should instead have submitted the document in the form of a statement to the House, under Standing Order 15(2). Since at the time I did not know the nature of the document, I suggested that I be allowed to study it in order to determine whether it was of the kind that can be placed on the table of the House in accordance with Standing Order 41(2). It appears that my words were not fully understood at the table, for the document tabled by the minister has indeed been accepted, as is shown by the Votes and Proceedings of the House. The comments of the Chair are therefore somewhat academic. I will, however, say a few words on the problem of procedure raised by the hon. member for York South, supported by his colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
It seems to me that the Standing Orders must be interpreted to mean that a minister's statement on any government action or policy should be made on motions, under Standing Order 15. This provision is, of course, aimed at giving the members of the opposition parties the opportunity to reply to such statements.
Having studied the document tabled yesterday by the Minister of Communications, I have the impression that it is of an informative nature, which could, in my opinion, be tabled under Standing Order 41, as the hon. minister did yesterday.
Generally speaking, I accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for York South that the text of a minister's statement of the kind normally made on motions under Standing Order 15 cannot be tabled pursuant to Standing Order 41. However, this does not seem to be the case since, in my opinion, the document concerned was one of those which can be tabled rather that presented to the House as a ministerial statement.
Maybe the objection of the hon. member for York South can be interpreted to the effect that the minister should have made a statement, pursuant to Standing Order 15, even after having tabled a document under Standing Order 41. Accordingly, the hon. member's point of order
does not relate to the interpretation of the Standing Orders. Rather it is a grievance which goes beyond the limits of the procedure.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion. In view of the acknowledged fact that natural gas exported from Canada is underpriced and that additional gas supplies will be more costly than those now readily available, and since the government has not yet presented its national energy policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the government
(1)	to review all existing contracts for the export of natural gas with a view to setting minimum prices based on the cost of competitive fuels and to impose an export tax equal to the price increases so that the benefits will accrue to the people of Canada;
(2)	to refuse any additional permits for the export of natural gas until the government has submitted its national energy policy to parliament; and
(3)	to instruct the National Energy Board not to approve any application for a gas pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley until the government has brought down its long awaited national energy policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon.
5144

June 28, 1973
Air Canada
member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the Minister of Labour to give top priority to the settlement of the strike at Winnipeg of the finance department employees of Air Canada, and that he make himself personally available to assist in achieving a settlement between the parties without further delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


MANPOWER
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43 on a very pressing matter.
Considering that under the Adult Occupational Training Act, persons who are taking vocational training are deprived of grants after a period of 52 weeks, considering further that some of these half trained find themselves without a job and must be satisfied with a meagre pittance from the social welfare department. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House give early consideration to the steps to be taken in order to amend Bills C-278 and C-195 so that students who need pre-secondary schooling to Secondary V may be able to do so without restrictions or loss of time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion of the hon. member cannot be put.


AIR CANADA
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I try again to get the consent of the House tc present a motion under Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the Minister of Transport to request from Air Canada a written statement to the effect that the finance

department offices of Air Canada will not be moved from Winnipeg, and that such a statement be tabled in or communicated to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, again proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity? ,


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
Introduction of Bills, First Reading of Senate Public Bills.


Mr. Balfour:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order at this time to ask if it is the intention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to ask the House to revert to motions this evening so that he can make a statement to which opposition spokesmen will have the right to reply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether that question could be asked during the question period. It is difficult for the Chair to recognize members on questions at this point. We are at the moment on the item, "First Reading of Senate Public Bills", and I wonder how a member can rise under that item, on a point of order, to ask whether we will revert to motions. Perhaps we might agree to revert to motions for the purpose of allowing the hon. member to ask whether the minister is going to make a statement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, to save the hon. member putting the question again, if the House is generally agreeable an order might be made permitting the House to revert to motions at eight o'clock this evening so that I could make a statement, pursuant to the motions procedure, at that time and then table the document.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I think we would be prepared to do that. However, having in mind the ruling Your Honour has just made we assume the minister's statement will deal with policy.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure how the hon. member is interpreting the ruling. I have not interpreted it yet. My understanding is that there is an order of the House for the purpose of reverting to motions at eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   GRAIN
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
ment yet prepared any contingency measures to assure that this step taken by the United States to restrict exports does not cause scarcities and even higher prices for essential foods in Canada?

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the threat to Canadian agriculture created by the United States ban on the export of oilseed products, and the consequent threat of higher prices to Canadian consumers for meat, poultry and dairy products, and the urgent need for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to outline to parliament the government's proposals for a new policy on the sale and pricing of domestic feed grains.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a meeting of officials this morning and of cabinet itself to discuss this matter. We are looking at what the government might do if certain hypothetical conditions prevail. At this time, of course, the embargo is only for purposes of inventory. There is no action that we can announce at this time, but of course we are concerned about the matter and its possible consequences.


Mr. Stanfield:: As the government could hardly have been taken by surprise in view of the advance warning by the President of the United States to some extent, has the government not developed any contingency plans? Is it, for example, considering restriction of the export from Canada of certain protein products?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has given notice of his intention to propose the adjournment of the House to discuss the matter to which he has just alluded. The Chair has given very serious consideration to the hon. member's proposal. Obviously the matter proposed for discussion is of concern and importance to all members. It will also be appreciated that hon. members might want an opportunity to express their views in relation to the supply and cost of feed grains in advance of the policy statement which the minister has indicated would be made some time in the future.
The decision which the Chair has to make is whether such a debate should take place this very day in priority to the government legislation proposed for consideration later today. In other words, the point at issue is not the urgency of the matter but the urgency of debate this very day. My thought is that while the matter referred to by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is important and urgent, a parliamentary debate on it might well take place some time later. I would suggest that hon. members interested in this problem and anxious to have such a debate might review the situation as it develops in the days ahead and determine later whether an emergency debate under the terms of Standing Order 26 might be more appropriate at a later time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of the decision of the United States government yesterday to place an embargo on exports of soybeans, soybean oil and cotton seed. Has the govern-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said, Mr. Speaker, of course we have considered many possible actions, including the one mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, but the government is not prepared to take any such action or choose among its various courses of action until such time as that action is required in view of the action of the United States.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the acknowledged shortage of protein feeds in the country today and in view of this new development, is the government not prepared to take any measures at this time to head off a developing shortage, or is it simply going to wait and talk about contingency plans until a real emergency is upon us?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, of course, that the government is prepared to take any action that is required. What I am saying is that the government today is not announcing any such action at this time.


FEED GRAIN-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT WHEAT BOARD WILL CONTROL
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the confusion and disorderly marketing that now exist in the United States and that country's inability to know even what supplies it has on hand, will the minister rise in his place and assure the House that he will not create the same kind of confusion and distress in Canada by taking certain grains out of the control of the Canadian Wheat Board as he has said he is preparing to do?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not said to the hon. member nor, so far as I know, to anyone else what I am preparing to do-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: [DOT]-but I appreciate the hon. member in effect congratulating the government on the fact that in our system we do have a situation where we know very well and very fully the nature of our export commitments in
26446-35i

June 28, 1973
Oral Questions
our major grains, wheat and barley. I am happy to assure the hon. member that any system we have in the future will have those features as well.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the repeated vague and unsatisfactory answers the minister has given in the House to questions on this matter and in order to put the fears of farmers in eastern and western Canada at rest-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: -will the minister at an early date make a statement on motions on exactly what his and the government's policy is in regard to the handling, pricing and marketing of feed grains?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it should be well known to the hon. member, and I am sure it is to most members of the House, that we do intend to make a statement on our feed grain policy in the very near future.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to ask a supplementary question?


Léonel Beaudoin: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. La Salle:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette on a supplementary question.


FEED GRAINS-POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF TRANSPORT SUBSIDY-MINISTER'S POSITION
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board a supplementary question.
Since a number of eastern producers are concerned about the possible cancellation of transport subsidies, can the minister assure the House that these subsidies for the eastward transportation of feed grains will be maintained.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to forecast ahead of the announcement of the policy decision what that decision will be in regard to any of its parts. I can remind hon. members that in the Speech from the Throne we indicated that we proposed to have that policy announcement prior to August 1 and we are still some way away from that date. I understand the interest of hon. members in having a decision as early as possible, and as a result I fully expect we will be able to oblige and have the decision and an announcement well ahead of that date.


FEED GRAINS-EFFECT OF UNITED STATES EXPORT EMBARGO ON CANADIAN PRODUCTION OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question, arising out of the original question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, to the Minister of Agriculture who understands this problem. Is it not a fact that there is a serious shortage of sources of protein today in Canada for the feeding of livestock and poultry and that the embargo imposed by the Nixon administration will, unless something effective is done, actually paralyse and strike an almost knockout blow at the production of livestock and poultry in our country?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think we have to recognize that what the right hon. gentleman has said has some merit.


Mr. Hees:: Go on from there.


Eugene Whelan: Especially the first part of what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: We are concerned. We know approximately how much supply we have in Canada. We know what our potential is. We know that we must have protein for the effective production of many of our agricultural products about which we are all concerned. We are prepared to take whatever action is necessary and make whatever representation is necessary to guarantee that our producers will be looked after in the best manner possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer of the Minister of Agriculture indicates I was right when I suggested he knew something about the subject. I would ask the minister this question. Having regard to his rather frank admission that the situation is serious in the matter of the assurance of protein, can the government be expected within the next two or three days to bring forward some alternative suggestion? Is the government at the moment giving consideration to a denial of the export from Canada of certain protein producing foods to the end that no irreparable harm will be done to Canada's livestock and poultry industry?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are considering everything possible that we can do. The Prime Minister has already referred to the meeting this morning and there is a meeting this afternoon. We have to have all the facts on just what the United States of America intends to do because we are dependent on protein from that country, and we have to make sure, and make damn sure, where we are going.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, one further question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Crowfoot and later the horn member for Yorkton-Melville, and will then go to the hon. member for Richmond and return to this subject later.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have just one further question. In view of the deep urgency of the matter, has
June 28, 1973

the government of Canada been in touch with the administration in the United States or the Ambassador of the United States in Canada and made any request along the line that the United States should, to the extent that protein foods are necessary, in particular the seeds that have been mentioned, exempt them from the order of the President?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have been in consultation with our counterparts in the United States, but it would be presumptuous of me to say at this time exactly what representations were made or what the response was.


FEED GRAIN POLICY-ROLE OF WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jack Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. With regard to the suggested announcement of a feed grains policy, can the minister assure the House and the country that his interference in the Canadian Wheat Board will not undermine its authority?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we had a long debate on this subject the other day in which the hon. member could not make up his mind whether he wanted me to interfere or not. I want to assure hon. members that the principle stands very firm that the commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board under their act are bound to attempt to market grain in the best interests of the producers who deliver it to them. Any instructions that are given to the Canadian Wheat Board under the authority of the government of Canada are done by order in council as provided in the act, and this is done very exceptionally.


FEED GRAIN-POSSIBILITY OF POLICY STATEMENT BEFORE SUMMER RECESS-LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Can he assure the House he will be making a statement before the House recesses, and will he also be introducing changes by legislation so the House can have a say rather than making changes by order in council?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the hon. member's question depends, among other things, upon knowledge when the House will in fact adjourn. It is our expectation that we will be in a position before very long to make our decision known. The exact procedure we will follow depends on the last phases of discussions which we may choose to have with interested parties across the country who have made representations.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the minister's evasive answers and the concern of the wheat pools and the farmers union, can the minister at least assure the House and the farmers of western Canada that the power now exercised by the Canadian Wheat Board in marketing feed grains will not be eroded in any sense?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I simply repeat that I do not intend to predict or forecast an announcement based on a decision that still has to be taken.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he tell this House whether the government or his department has managed to have an agreement reached between the CIP of Temiscaming and the TEMBEC group? If so, can the minister say what subsidies have been granted to TEMBEC in order to help it acquire and operate this business?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House yesterday, this matter has been virtually resolved. However, there are one or two contacts I have to make this afternoon. I hope to be able to make an announcement tomorrow containing the information the hon. member is seeking.


FEED GRAINS-PRICE INCREASES-REQUEST THAT POSSIBLE ACTION WILL NOT AFFECT PRODUCERS ALONE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the possibility of action being taken to halt the rising prices of protein supplement, and as the rise has been largely due to the depreciation of the Canadian dollar and price setting in the European Common Market, can the minister assure the western growers of feed supplements that any action will not be at their expense alone but will fall on the country as a whole?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, any action we would take would be assisted by all the people of Canada because the production of agricultural producers is not just for farmers but for all the people of Canada.


FEED GRAIN-SUGGESTED RESEARCH PROGRAM TO DETERMINE WHETHER DOGFISH CAN BE PROCESSED FOR USE AS PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Fisheries. Inasmuch as dogfish are the scourge of the ocean, particularly on the west coast, and are inedible for human consumption, will the minister seek ways and means of embarking upon a research program to see whether dogfish may be caught and processed as fish flour or in some other form as a

June 28, 1973
Oral Questions
protein supplement to replace that which is now being lost?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the answer essentially is yes, but the hon. member should know that perhaps as much as one-third of all fish in fish and chips in the United Kingdom is dogfish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: Wait until the Queen hears about this.


FEED GRAIN-REQUEST THAT PRESENT COMPETITIVE POSITION OF EASTERN LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS RESPECTING PURCHASE BE MAINTAINED UNDER NEW POLICY
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the press reports this morning and the rather indefinite replies of the minister this afternoon, can the minister assure eastern livestock producers that they will remain in at least as competitive a position with regard to the purchase of feed grains as at present under any new policy which he will announce?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members find my answers evasive, I refer them to some of my earliest answers in which I made it quite clear that I do not intend to make a statement on policy at this point for a number of very good reasons, including the steps to be taken before an announcement can possibly be made. If that leads to evasion when hon. members are asking for a statement where no statement can possibly be made, I will have to plead guilty. I can no more give the hon. member that assurance than I could others because I do not propose to forecast what the statement will be nor, therefore, to try to give assurances to hon. members except to say that I believe we will have a very good policy on feed grains that will treat fairly all producers in all sectors of the country.


Mr. Murta:: Can it be assumed at this point in time that such a plebiscite will be carried out along roughly the same lines or in the same way that the proposed plebiscite was initiated two years ago, namely, that rapeseed producers who marketed any crop within the past three years will be allowed to participate?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the final decision has not been taken. The only assurance I can give the hon. member is that the exact wording and nature of the plebiscite forecast in the bill to which he referred will not be the form in this case.


RAPESEED-SUPPLYING OF INFORMATION TO PRODUCERS PRIOR TO PLEBISCITE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of his earlier reference in the House to the gathering of information both pro and con on the issue of rapeseed being brought under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, can he advise the House whether his officials are still gathering information that is opposed to bringing rapeseed under the Wheat Board? If so, will this information be disseminated to the rapeseed producers of this country prior to the plebiscite?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the main work on developing information on the various systems was done by the rapeseed marketing committee. That report has been available to producers for many months in its original form and in the form of a summary produced by a number of organizations. We do not anticipate any specific gathering of additional information. We are considering a form of disseminating arguments on both sides of the question whereby we may be able to assist in the actual distribution of that information while we may rely on the various protagonists for the preparation of it.


RAPESEED-VOTING PROCEDURE IN PROPOSED PLEBISCITE ON INCLUSION UNDER JURISDICTION OF WHEAT BOARD
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. It has to do with the announced plebiscite the government intends to hold with regard to whether rapeseed should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the minister outline to the House what voting procedure will be used to determine the outcome of the vote that will be held this fall?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we appointed Mr. George Turner to consider with the farm organizations the exact form and nature of the poll or vote that will be taken. At the present time he is consulting the organizations in order to bring back an understanding of their views. We will also be asking him to assist with the actual supervision of the poll.


INCOME TAX
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Revenue. On May 14 I asked the minister what was the reason for the extraordinarily long delay in Canadian taxpayers receiving their income tax refunds. At that time the minister said they were being processed quickly and that he expected they would be out within two weeks. In view of the fact that was six weeks ago and many Canadian taxpayers have still not received their income tax refunds, can the minister explain why they should be asked to wait so long?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the hon. member looks back he will see we were talking about so-called clean returns filed on time and without any error. When I

answered his question at a later date I indicated that within the time frame of some two weeks to a month we hoped to get out the remainder of those refunds to which people were entitled. I believe members are finding that usually by the time an inquiry is made of my office and an answer is given by the computer the refund in question has already gone out.


George Harris Hees: That just shows how slow you are.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I do not think the premise of the hon. member's question is correct since I am advised that more refunds, worth more, have been sent out this year than ever before at this date.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I might point out that my own personal records indicate that 55 per cent of the inquiries I have referred to the minister's office have not yet produced refunds.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is quite correct either. The hon. member holds the record for the number of inquiries he has asked my office to make, but he must realize, as other hon. members must, that every time we have to make an investigation of the status of a particular return the processing of other returns is slowed down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I might also point out that he is not correct in saying only 55 per cent of the people about whom he has inquired have received their refunds. He would be correct if he says that those are the refunds that we have been able to confirm so far which have in fact gone out, but others may well have gone out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INTENTION OF MINISTER RESPECTING REVIEW OF GAS EXPORT CONTRACTS IN LIGHT OF PRICE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since it appears we are not going to have a statement on a national energy policy for at least a year, may I ask the minister what action he proposes to take in the meantime with respect to a number of pressing energy matters now confronting the country? In particular, I want to ask him about the fact that gas exported from Canada is underpriced, as established in the resources committee and as now corroborated by the report his department is releasing today. Is it the intention of the minister to have these gas export contracts reviewed with a view to bringing the prices into line with competitive fuels?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In fact, Mr. Speaker, the contracts are now under review by the National Energy Board and in some cases there has already been an increase in the return on export contracts.
Oral Questions


POSTPONEMENT OF APPROVAL OF ANY MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE APPLICATION UNTIL NATIONAL POLICY ANNOUNCED
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact the minister has repeatedly stated that the National Energy Board would be prepared to entertain applications for the construction of a gas pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley, mainly for supplying gas to American consumers, may I ask the minister whether he intends to restrict or postpone approval of such a project until such time as he brings down a national energy policy so the country will know what gas reserves are available for the Canadian people?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the hon. gentleman that we do, of course, have a policy in effect now with regard to natural gas, and that assessments have been made as to what gas is surplus to Canadian requirements. Indeed, one of the elements involved in the hearing process, as required by the National Energy Board Act, is to make a determination at that point in time as to what is surplus to Canada's requirements. So in that sense the hearing process itself will provide the fact finding to which I think the hon. gentlemen is referring.


DETERMINATION OF SURPLUS GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES FOR EXPORT-MAINTENANCE OF CONTROLS UNTIL NATIONAL POLICY ANNOUNCED
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact the minister's deputy stated yesterday that Canada is prepared to export oil and gas that is surplus to its reasonable and foreseeable requirements, may I ask the minister how he and his department can determine what supplies are surplus on the basis of being reasonable and foreseeable until he brings down a statement on national energy policy? In short, will the present export controls be continued, will they be enlarged, will they be reduced, or will the status quo be maintained until he brings down a national energy policy in 1974?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the present export decision will be made if the facts indicate that there is indeed a surplus to our reasonable requirements. As the hon. member will find if he looks at the record, this is, in effect, one of the functions of the National Energy Board, namely, to determine whether there is a surplus. This has always been its policy, and that is what it did in November, 1971. When it is not satisfied there is a surplus, of course there is no additional export.


NATURAL GAS-DISCOVERIES ON KING CHRISTIAN AND MELVILLE ISLANDS-PROPOSAL RESPECTING TRANSPORT TO EASTERN QUEBEC AND UNITED STATES
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether Panarctic Oils Ltd. have completed their study about gas discoveries on King Christian and

June 28, 1973
Oral Questions
Melville Islands in the Arctic Ocean and whether they have suggested a route for the transport of that gas to eastern Quebec and the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have already answered such a question in the House. Panarctic Oils Limited, Canadian Pacific and other companies are interested in such a pipeline in the Arctic. For the moment, a committee is carrying on a polar gas study concerning that pipeline plan to eastern Canada, especially Quebec.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat-

I bring to the attention of hon. members that there are five or more members seeking to ask supplementaries on this subject, which might very well take us almost to the end of the question period. I hope hon. members will limit their supplementaries on this subject because we have not been progressing very quickly as a result of the number of supplementaries on the subjects already brought to the fore by hon. members.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Would he use his influence in favour of the shortest route, across the eastern part of the Hudson Bay and James Bay?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must give-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has interpretated the question of the hon. member as a representation and recognizes the hon. member for Calgary North.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question. In light of the fact the National Energy Board has jurisdiction to make decisions regarding the export of natural gas and other energy commodities and products, has there been any suggestion that Dr. Howland, chairman of the National Energy Board, intends to resign, or is there any suggestion that there will be a change in the personnel of the National Energy Board, either due to political interference or to other reasons?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that Dr. Howland, whose term as chairman of the National Energy Board expires in August of this year, has indicated that he

would wish to resign as of early next month. Perhaps I might take this occasion, since we are speaking about the matter, to commend particularly the dedicated service that Dr. Howland has given this country over the last 25 years in many capacities, but especially as vice-chairman and chairman of the National Energy Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear,, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He has been a good public servant and has worked hard for Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that much of the work of the National Energy Board has been concerned in the past and certainly will be in the future with exports of natural gas and crude petroleum, which are so important to the economy of Alberta and other western provinces, will the minister assure the House that when making decisions to appoint new personnel to the board western Canadian interests will be taken into consideration?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. gentleman that there are at the present time several Albertans on the board. Of course, the function of the board is not only to deal with petroleum questions but also with questions in respect of electricity.


An hon. Member:: What about the Atlantic provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: And, as the hon. member suggests, with the emerging east coast industry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister been apprised of the statement yesterday afternoon by President Echeverria of Mexico that the Mexican government has decided to extend its ownership of its marine resources 200 miles seaward, and is the minister now prepared in the interest of Canada having a unified position in international affairs to state categorically that he does support the position that the marine resources over the continental shelf and slope are owned by Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this statement and I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing it to my attention. I do wish to say to him and to the House that it is the intention of the government to issue a statement later in the year on Canada's objectives and position in respect of the whole question of the law of the sea, including the question raised by the hon. gentleman.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether Canada's official position to be taken at the Law of the Sea Conference will be to
June 28, 1973

extend our jurisdiction to cover our continental shelf and slope and, if so, will the government support the position Iceland is taking on this matter in view of the similarity of the situations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has said, it is not our intention to ask only for 50 miles.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I suggest to hon. members that an attempt should be made to limit the number of supplementary questions, but if it is the wish of hon. members I will recognize first the hon. member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister's reply indicates that he has misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued my question. I asked whether Canada will now take as its official position that it has jurisdiction over its continental shelf and slope for purposes of management and conservation of our marine resources, which in many cases could take us beyond 200 miles, as the minister knows?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, I agree entirely, Mr. Speaker, and I fully expect that in the objectives or the general position that Canada will take in preparation for the Law of the Sea Conference some such objective will be stated.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, the hon. member for Assiniboia and then the hon. member for Portneuf.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the policy announcement which he indicated will be forthcoming in the fall will take the form of a white paper presentation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the procedure I would favour and that I think the government will follow is, first of all, to have consultations with the provinces which have expressed an interest in the position that will be taken by Canada, following which the government will issue a statement of its objectives for the Law of the Sea Conference. It would be my intention to table it here and refer it to the appropriate committee of the House.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the Auditor General in his report has charged the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce with misuse of public funds-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members speaking across the floor near the Chair make it very difficult for
Oral Questions
the Chair to hear hon. members who have the floor. I think all hon. members should be given an opportunity to ask their questions without interruption.


William George Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I stated, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the Auditor General, an officer of parliament, has charged the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce with misuse of public funds under the defence industry productivity program, will the minister inform the House whether the corporations involved in the charges in paragraphs 103, 105 and 106 are Collins Radio Company of Canada, General Precision Industries Limited and Computing Devices of Canada? Will the minister also inform the House whether the government has moved in the direction of attempting to collect the $1.4 million owed by these corporations?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member asked whether I could confirm that the particular firm referred to in paragraph 102 of the Auditor General's report was the Canadian Marconi Company. The answer is yes. I can confirm that information. But the department does not accept that it is in default with regard to collecting the outstanding obligation mentioned in the report. As to the names in the other paragraphs, I might suggest to the hon. member that the Public Accounts Committee has been set up to consider the report of the Auditor General and that might be the place to go into a detailed examination of his report.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for one final supplementary question, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Portneuf.


William George Knight: In view of the fact the Public Accounts Committee and parliament have received several reports from the Auditor General on these matters, can the minister inform the House whether his department is considering a review of its grants structure and programs? In view of the fact that one of the corporations I mentioned today is now controlled by a United States corporation by the name of Control Data, and that this corporation through the minister's programs has received over $20 million in grants-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[ Translation]


WEATHER MODIFICATION
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Can he tell the House whether information has been exchanged between the Canadian and American Defence Departments on altering the weather? If so, what did those exchanges consist of? Is it solely a matter of exchanging information or have joint experiments been
5152

June 28, 1973
Oral Questions
conducted on creating and seeding clouds through various means?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that information is being exchanged.
[ Translation]


CLOUD SEEDING-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION BY PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether it is true that the right hon. Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Gandhi, on the occasion of her trip to Ottawa, expressed the wish to obtain from the Canadian government the result of what research has been done here in Canada with regard to altering the weather?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question was asked at the Indian delegation level. Some interest was expressed in obtaining information on the technical aspect of this situation. I promised to look into the matter and to put them in touch with whoever, within the government, is competent in this field.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary South. [Translation]


Mr. Prud'homme:: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Calgary South.


INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER REPORTS
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the statement in the government's energy report, "Phase I Analysis", that a second report will be prepared, will the minister say on what dates the further phases mentioned in the report will be available, and which phase will in fact contain the national oil policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be commenting on this question later this day.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Will the minister say whether he will be eliminating his extravagant public relations program, including Brinks security services-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is clearly out of order.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, the minister responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It deals with a program aired the other day before the arrival of Her Majesty the Queen in Canada and featuring Lauri-er Lapierre, an avowed anti-monarchist. I should like to ask the minister to tell the House who was responsible for approving both the program and the selection of Laurier Lapierre as the featured guest on the program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question could be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency, it could be considered at the time of adjournment.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the decision of the International Court of Justice ordering France to postpone its nuclear tests in the Pacific, can the minister advise the House what steps, if any, officially or otherwise, he is taking or contemplating to urge France to abide by this decision of the International Court of Justice in The Hague.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman will recall that the House passed unanimously a resolution asking France to comply with the order of the court, and that has been transmitted to the government of France officially.


NUCLEAR TEST BY PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA-PROTEST BY CANADA
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
Has the government been advised that the People's Republic of China exploded a two- to three-megaton nuclear bomb and, in the affirmative, has the government protested to that country's government concerning these tests which are taking place a few days only after the Nixon-Brezhnev meetings which were aimed at easing the political situation and preventing a nuclear war?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have instructed our delegation in Peking to register a very firm protest to the government of the People's Republic of China.

[ English]


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Since the minister has successfully evaded forthright answers to various questions since the beginning of this session with regard to air travel-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has been recognized for the purpose of asking a question, not to make an argument. We have already reached the end of the question period. If time is taken up in argument rather than in questions, we deprive other hon. members of an opportunity to ask questions.


John Raymond Ellis: Will the minister make a statement on motions on the government's position concerning three things: resumption or otherwise of preclearance to and from the United States, the results of bilateral talks with the United States concerning the opening of new routes into that country, and the awarding of the landing rights at Milan to a Canadian carrier?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On June 18 last, the minister tabled a communique from the meetings of the North Atlantic Council of NATO held on June 14 and 15. May I ask the minister why he did not also table at the same time the related final recommendations for the Helsinki consultations, containing the agenda for the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, to be held next week, particularly in view of the great hope which the agenda item on co-operation in humanitarian fields holds for the many Jews, Ukrainians and residents of the Baltic countries who are now restricted from leaving the Soviet Union.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might allow the minister to reply to the question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I share the approval of the hon. member for the agenda that has been prepared for the conference in Helsinki next week which I will be attending as the chief Canadian delegate. I regret that the document in question has not been tabled and I will ensure that it is immediately.
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


ALLEGED ARREST OF OFFICER BRIAN MURPHY FOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA-REASON FOR CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I gave his department notice of it. In view of the fact that on March 13, 1973, RCMP drug squad members seized 107 marijuana plants at the home of federal penitentiary service officer Brian C. Murphy and his wife Jeanette and in view of the fact that both accused are now engaged in an inmate profile study at the B.C. penitentiary and since the B.C. penitentiary local-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should take one moment to caution hon. members to try to ask their questions in such a way that they are not speeches. I could quote for the benefit of hon. members the Standing Order which permits hon. members to ask questions without giving information to the House, to ask questions which are brief and, to the point. When hon. members ask questions, I suggest respectfully and kindly to all hon. members, which are as long as a few we have heard in the question period I think we do not necessarily achieve the better result and this does deprive a number of hon. members eventually of an opportunity to ask questions. Perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta might now ask his question.


John Douglas Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister now inform the House if there is any reason this couple has not been suspended and are still carrying on their inmate contacts?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I had an answer prepared for the hon. member last week. I thought he had forgotten about the question. I will have to get the answer and bring it back to the House again.


ALLEGED REFUSAL OF GASOLINE TO CANADIAN
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of reports that Canadian motorists are being refused gasoline at many United States service stations because the operators of these stations believe Canadian government policies are contributing to fuel shortages in that country, can the Prime Minister say whether he has instructed the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to take steps to bring about a speeding up of the development of a Mackenzie Valley energy transmission corridor to help ease the situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to read the question-I missed all of the first part-and see if I can give an answer.
26446-36J
Oral Questions CONFLICT OF INTEREST

June 28, 1973
POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF GUIDELINES AND/OR DRAFT BILL BEFORE SUMMER RECESS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is now his intention to bring before the House before the summer recess the promised guidelines and/or draft bill regarding conflict of interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, provided the House does not recess too soon.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and arises out of a statement in the 1972-73 annual report of the Science Council that the recently implemented policy of contracting out research and development can only be effective if it is co-ordinated with this country's industrial strategy. My question therefore is, when will the government be issuing its industrial strategy so that this contracting out of research and development can be made effective?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the question of industrial strategy I would have to refer the member to answers the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has given many times in and out of the House.


George Harris Hees: That was no answer. There was nothing in it.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on several occasions has said he is unable to come up with an industrial strategy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question. It is not necessary to explain why he is asking it. The hon. member has been recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not a cabinet decision has been made to issue a statement outlining this country's industrial strategy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my previous answer. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has indicated several times in answer to questions that the government has many elements of an industrial strategy.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Simcoe North and then call orders of the day.


REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO STUDY GENETIC DEFECTS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recent disturbing findings that 25 per cent to 30 per cent of all pediatric admissions to the wards of children's hospitals are the result of genetic defects which were in most cases unknown to the parents and shocking and upsetting to them when they became known, will the minister make funds available to study the matter further in order to meet this distressing problem?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I should like to advise him that the Medical Research Council is providing about $700,000 in grants for this particular purpose and the Bureau of Human Ecology in my department through the national health grant is providing another $125,000 in grants for that particular purpose.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting government House leader, who I assume is the Minister of Justice, about the business of the House for this week and next week. In light of the rather vague way in which it was left yesterday, might I ask if the minister would take note of the fact that this party feels that the election expenses bill should be passed before this House recesses,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: -either in its present form or in some improved form? Will the minister undertake that the House will not recess until that bill has been debated and approved in all stages?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would be our expectation to call the Olympics bill today, Bill C-196, followed by the crop insurance bill, the Parole Board amendments, and the Canada Pension Plan amendments, and to complete them tomorrow if possible. On Tuesday, we would expect to return to income tax bills Nos. 2 and 3 and complete them; then proceed to the electoral boundaries bill, the election expenses legislation and the other two tax bills that are on the order paper. It is certainly our hope that we can move forward with much of the important legislation before us, including the election expenses legislation. I am glad that the hon. member for Peace River has now made clear what seemed to be cloudy yesterday, namely, that they seriously want to see it passed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: There are no clouds over here.
June 28, 1973


Jean Marchand: There seems to be a storm over there.


Otto Emil Lang: We do consider it essential, before we rise for the summer, to deal with the four tax bills that are before the House, the Olympics bill, the capital punishment bill, the Immigration Appeal Board bill and the electoral boundaries bill in all of their stages. We attach great importance to the election expenses legislation, the family allowances legislation and the privacy legislation, and we will certainly press forward with them and hope for cooperation. So far as the election expenses legislation is concerned, we would like to see it become law quickly. That would be desirable even before we rise, but what is really essential is that it become law before the next election.


Gerald William Baldwin: When is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the
acting House leader if he can assure the House that the bill respecting family allowances will be presented within the next few days so that there could be some chance of it being dealt with before the recess?


Otto Emil Lang: We are trying to move it forward as quickly as we can.


John Howard Lundrigan: My question is supplementary and it is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he give us some indication of what the immediate plan for the FISP bill is. The bill has really been in the conceptual stage for four years. Can the minister give the House an assurance that it will be brought in, debated and passed before the House rises?


Marc Lalonde: It has had a long gestation, but I hope the hon. member will see the bill pretty soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These are now supplemen-taries and points of order. The Chair allows, as a normal procedure, the House leader for the Official Opposition and other House leaders to rise on so-called points of order at the end of the question period to inquire as to the business of the House, but I wonder whether that should be a justification for many hon. members to rise and ask about the future of different items of legislation. I think that hon. members might reflect on whether we should proceed or get used to this practice. The hon. member for Huron rises, I believe, on the same point of order.


Mr. McKinley:: I wish to direct my question to the government House leader. We received some assurances from the Minister of Agriculture that before we rise for the recess, amendments would be brought in to legislation concerning the humane movement of western feeder cattle and also that the 36 hour limit would be taken out of the Criminal Code. Will that legislation not be forthcoming immediately?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact timing of that has not been determined.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar rising on the same so-called point of order?
Olympic Bill


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he is also prepared, before the House rises, to bring in whatever changes or alterations to the procedure of handling feed grain there might be.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the policy announcement will come first. If the hon. member is asking about legislation in that regard before the House rises, if any legislation is required-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully suggest to hon. members that these additional questions are not points of order at all. If we are to develop the practice of having an additional ten minutes of questions on an alleged point of order, then the questions should be asked as regular questions during the question period rather than raised by the House leaders. I suggest that if, by consent, House leaders are allowed to rise on a point of order to ask about the business of the House, that should be limited as much as possible to House leaders.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-196, respecting the 1976 summer Olympic games, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should bring to the attention of hon. members that it is normal courtesy for hon. members not to rise and leave the House while the motion is being put.


An hon. Member:: Yes, Sir.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in a statement to the House on February 2 of this year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that the federal government was "willing to act upon the request of the city of Montreal and COJO concerning the special issues of Olympic stamps and coins". He also mentioned the government's continuing discussion with the government of Quebec, the city of Montreal and COJO on the best way of answering COJO's request for an annual lottery. This commitment was given on the basis of written assurances of the prime minister of Quebec, the mayor of Montreal and Le Comite d'Organisation des Jeux Olympiques, COJO, the Olympic organizing committee, that if the requests just referred to are met, no direct contribution will be required from the federal government for the staging of the 1976 summer Olympic games. Hon. members will recognize that the provisions of this bill fully discharge that commitment, the commitment that this government made to the province of Quebec, the city of Montreal, and COJO.
The Prime Minister, in his February statement, also recognized the fedederal involvement in the summer

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
Olympic games would extend beyond the enactment of enabling legislation. While making it clear that the federal government is not managing or controlling the games, the Prime Minister accepted the fact that the large influx of Olympic participants and spectators would place additional pressures on various services which, in the very nature of things, would have to be provided by the government of Canada.
The Prime Minister referred to CMHC funding for an Olympic village, later to become part of Montreal's housing stock. He noted the CBC's participation as host broadcaster would require some $25 million, and in addition that increased costs as a result of the Olympics might total $20 million. Moreover, the Prime Minister suggested that the government might be willing to make certain specialized personnel available to the games organizers. I will later review in detail the nature and scope of the federal involvement to assure this House of the government's readiness to discharge responsibilities in the most effective way.

Mr. Speaker, the Act respecting the 1976 Summer Olympic Games consists of five precise provisions, on Olympic commemorative coins, Olympic commemorative stamps and related products, an Olympic lottery, the establishment of an Olympic Account in the accounts of Canada and the granting of tax-exempt status for gifts made to COJO. I propose to deal with each of these items in the above order.
If Parliament gives its approval, the Royal Canadian Mint will produce $5 and $10 silver coins to commemorate the 1976 Summer Olympic Games. These commemorative coins are intended for sale to collectors, and it is not expected that they will be put into circulation.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the government intends to supervise the implementation of this program very closely, and to take whatever measures are required if these coins are not kept as souvenirs.
Provision has been made for the federal government to set up a special marketing group, under the direction of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), to be responsible for the promotion and merchandising of these coins, both in Canada and abroad. The number of designs will be set on the advice of an advisory marketing committee, which will take into account the reactions of coin and souvenir collectors. The coins will bear designs on the theme of the Olympics, and will be stamped with the dates 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976. A sufficient quantity will be struck to satisfy the demand from coin and souvenir collectors. The Olympic coin designs will be chosen on the recommendations of a special advisory committee. Both the marketing and the advisory committees will include federal government and COJO representatives.
The federal government will keep exclusive responsibility for the production and marketing of Olympic coins. The issuance of those coins and the protection of their value are a federal government responsibility which must be most strictly exercised.
The coin marketing group will work in very close cooperation with the present post office marketing group

which will take care of the marketing of the stamps and postal related products.
This is a new venture for Canada and one that has been broadly discussed, particularly in the media. There has been wide speculation as to the potential size of the domestic and international markets for such coins. It is difficult for the federal government to predict what the effective demand will be, but we will pursue this marketing task with energy and enthusiasm.
If parliament endorses these measures, it is expected that $5 and $10 commemorative coins will be available for sale to collectors toward the end of this year. Production costs, as well as distribution and promotion costs, will be charged against gross proceeds from coin sales with the net proceeds going to COJO.
With respect to special Olympic postage stamps, Mr. Speaker, the government proposes, if parliament agrees, to issue special postage stamps and postal-related products, beginning late in 1973, with additional issues in 1974, 1975 and 1976. The net proceeds received from the sale of such special postage stamps and postal-related products would be paid to COJO. My colleague, the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), will elaborate on the details of this proposal later in the debate. In general, however, it is intended that the calculation of net revenue from the sale of special Olympic postage stamps will be made according to the source of that revenue. A distinction will be made between stamps which are sold for postal purposes and those which are sold to collectors for philatelic purposes.
Sales made directly to stamp collectors from the various philatelic counters operated by the Post Office Department will be readily identifiable, and the revenue from such sales will be credited to COJO after all costs to the federal government have been deducted. As with all commemorative stamps, where Olympic stamps are sold for postage purposes the revenue will be considered part of the Post Office's normal postal revenue. The Post Office also proposes to issue special commemmorative postage stamps which will bear a surcharge, in which case the added value will be credited to the special Olympic account. Such stamps will be valid for postal use. For example, Mr. Speaker, a person will pay 10 cents for an Olympic postage stamp marked 8 cents plus 2 cents. In that case the 8 cents will be considered normal postal revenue, and the 2 cents, less administrative costs, will be considered a contribution by the purchaser in support of the Olympics.
In the case of Olympic postal-related products, such as plaques, souvenir albums or folders, where the item is not of the type that could be used for the payment of postage, the net proceeds after deduction of total costs will be payable to COJO.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clearly understood. The operations related to the special stamps and postal products as well as their sale will be closely watched by the federal government on the basis of the same high standards which earned the exceptional credit enjoyed by Canadian stamps from stamp collectors.
June 28, 1973

We have had conversations aimed at finding the best means to meet COJO's requests about the creation of a national lottery to support the 1976 Olympic Games and promote amateur sports in the participating provinces. Under those proposals, the lottery may operate in the provinces having given their approval and over periods of time determined by those provinces. This proposal takes into account the fact that the federal government is not in the least interested in operating a national lottery and the time requirements make it inconvenient, in each province, to propose the adoption of enabling legislation. It goes without saying that the Olympic lottery will be operated in compliance with regulations adopted by the governor in council.

The production and marketing of Olympic coins, stamps and postal-related products is intended to generate revenue for the financing of the 1976 Summer Olympic Games, at no expense to the federal government, since all costs will be recovered. To ensure that these activities are adequately accounted for the bill provides for the establishment in the Accounts of Canada of a special account to be known as the Olympic Account. The Olympic Account, Mr. Speaker, will record transactions dealing with Olympic coins, special Olympic postage stamps and postal-related products. Payments out of the account to COJO will be made on the authorization of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
The bill also provides that donations by individuals and corporations may be deducted from taxable income by deeming COJO to be a registered Canadian amateur athletic association. In this way, Mr. Speaker, COJO can appeal to those individuals and corporations who share the desire to promote and develop the Olympic games in Canada to come forward with donations on a purely voluntary basis.
As I have outlined, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this bill permit the production and sale of Olympic coins, postage stamps and postal-related products, as well as the conducting of a national lottery. These provisions are intended to discharge the commitment made by the federal government which requires special legislative action.
I now propose to elaborate on the extent and potential cost of other federal government involvement mentioned by the Prime Minister last February, given the additional information available to us as a result of the progress made by COJO in planning for the Olympics. I should say at the outset that most of the activities which I will describe will not require supplementary funds and will be carried out within the scope of normal federal government programs.
[ Translation]
The most important specific item which requires additional funds is the contribution of the CBC, which would be responsible for the broadcasting during the Olympic Games. According to the practice established elsewhere during recent Olympic Games, foreign broadcasters will expect to see Canada, as the host country, provide for radio facilities, a basic television input and facilities for commentary services. These facilities will enable visiting foreign broadcasters to make thorough reports to the world radio and television public of over one billion
Olympic Bill
people. The government agreed to grant to the CBC a maximum amount of $25 millions for this purpose.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will also receive $25 million from COJO. The installation of facili-V ties for the exclusive use of foreign broadcasters will cost an additional amount of about $6 million. However, Mr. Speaker, these facilities will be provided on the basis of a full payment of costs.
As a result of the importance of the Olympic Games television and radio broadcasting programs, which represents the most important broadcasting project that an organization may be asked to undertake, most of the funds will be allocated for operating expenditures of the television input for broadcasters.
Mr. Speaker, the next area of federal government involvement requiring supplementary funds is one which I am sure is of vital concern to every member of this House, that is the area of security which will involve the participation of local, provincial and federal agencies. I am advised that Canada will be host to upwards of 9,000 foreign athletes and officials, approximately 4,000 representatives of the international news media, and as many as 250,000 spectators at the games each day.
I am sure hon. members will agree that it is clearly the federal government's responsibility to ensure that athletes, officials and visitors from other nations-including heads of state-will be free from harassment and threats of violence by subversive groups. The tragic events of Munich, which resulted in the loss of innocent lives, point up the sad fact that there are groups who are prepared to subvert international gatherings to their own ends without regard for the rights of others.
We must be prepared to take those measures necessary to maintain the security of the public and the participants. Therefore, while co-operating with Olympic officials as fully as possible to facilitate the entry of athletes and officials, Canada will retain control of admissions to this country. A strict control of persons entering Canada is a basic element in the proposed security program. These precautions are not designed to frustrate the entry of duly accredited participants, but rather to permit more effective control of undesirable persons. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police will fulfil their normal role in the protection of visiting dignitaries and heads of state, as well as in the maintenance of national security. In addition, the resources of the Canadian Armed Forces will be made available to supplement the RCMP in the protection of national security.
The total cost of all security measures which are within the responsibility of the federal government is estimated at $27.5 million. This total includes $14.3 million in supplementary funds for the Department of the Solicitor General in preparation for an execution of its responsibilities, in co-operation with Montreal, Kingston and provincial authorities; $3.2 million in supplementary funds for the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the provision of additional staff and computer resources to process the influx of athletes, officials and visitors without compromising security requirements; and $10 million from

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
normal operating funds of the Department of National Defence in support of other federal departments in the execution of the national security role.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that these figures, which of course would be spread over a four-year fiscal period, are very preliminary estimates based upon assumed world conditions in 1976. These amounts, expressed in 1973 dollars, will be revised periodically and reviewed by this House in its continuing consideration of proposed department expenditures.
In addition to these special measures, a number of federal regulatory programs will be called upon to provide, within their normal budgetary allocations, those services which are available to all Canadians or foreign visitors. Mr. Speaker, I refer here to the involvement of such federal government employees as inspectors of the Department of Agriculture who will be required to deal with the importation of animals for the equestrian events. The Department of Communications, for example, will allocate radio-frequency channels for communications purposes, and officials of the Department of Transport who will provide advice concerning marine safety and regulations. Also, as part of the preparations for the 1976 summer Olympic games, the Department of Public Works has estimated an expenditure of $770,000 for dredging and construction of a breakwater in Portsmouth Harbour at Kingston, the site of the sailing events.

Other departments of the federal government will indirectly assist CO JO in the accomplishment of their normal and continued programs.
The Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare, Sport Canada, has already begun the implementation of an intensive program to foster the creation and training of Canadian athletes whose objective is to take part in the 1976 Summer Olympic Games. Mr. Speaker, I should like to add that the part to be played by Sport Canada is not restricted to the young people of this country. The 1976 Olympic Games will require numerous officials namely people to fill in such positions as judges, time-keepers and score keepers. A training program for those officials also originates from Sport Canada and I firmly believe that the program will attract Canadians of different age groups. Thus many among those who cannot take part in the competitive events will have the opportunity to play an important role in preparing them.
In order to encourage visits in Canada in 1976, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will actively promote and advertise the 1976 Summer Olympic Games within its normal publicity program for tourists and foreign dealers.
Mr. Speaker, the organization of cultural meetings in connection with the Olympic Games is an old tradition meant to encourage a better understanding and co-operation among nations.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), my colleague in charge of cultural affairs, will hold meetings with the directors of cultural organizations and officials of departments involved in designing a cultural program with a largely Canadian character and consistent with the spirit

of the Olympic Games. The government expects that the activities will be carried out through the usual estimates affected to the programs of those organizations.

Mr. Speaker, last February the Prime Minister referred to the possible involvement of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the funding of the proposed Olympic village. To date, the federal government has not been officially approached. However, on the basis that the Olympic village meets criteria currently established for CMHC programs, such a project would be eligible and funding could be provided for normal CMHC program allocations in metropolitan Montreal. The amount of the federal funding required could depend on the number and cost of the units and the amount of commercial financing involved.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, recognizing the desire of all Canadians that the cost of the games should be kept to a minimum, the Prime Minister also indicated in February that the government would be willing to consider making available certain specialized personnel to CO JO. Following discussions with COJO, it is now proposed that approximately 25 man years would be made available over the period from 1973 to 1976. This personnel would be provided by certain departments out of their normal resource allocation and with the stipulation that normal federal program operations will not be hampered.
The organization and operational complexities associated with presenting the games involving up to 9,000 athletes and officials is a mammoth undertaking. When compressed into a two-week time frame, such a production is formidable. Providing adequate staff for such a venture is also a major problem because the two weeks of the Olympics fall in the middle of the summer work period for high school and university students. Since students give priority to openings providing full summer employment, previous host countries for the Olympics have found it necessary to rely heavily on the military for the provision of large numbers of personnel.
The Department of National Defence has been asked to prepare a report on the total requests for DND support for the games, together with the implications associated with the various alternative solutions possible. When this report has been received, the government will review our responsibilities to meet internal security requirements and our international commitments to determine in what way members of the Canadian Armed Forces could be made available in 1976 to serve in support roles at the Olympic games.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, except for the amounts to be made available to the CBC and the cost of security measures, most of the federal government's program involvement with the staging of the 1976 summer Olympic games will be met without the need for supplementary funding. Moreover, as I have stated, Parliament will continue to exercise full control over federal government program involvement with the Olympics by means of the annual estimates review under which details of all programs are submitted for examination and approval.
June 28, 1973

Canada's record of participation, Mr. Speaker, in the Olympic games has been in the best tradition of the Olympic code. Our athletes have been amateurs in the true sense of the word, men and women who dedicated their own time and money to develop the skills which have allowed them to represent their country in international competition. Through the years, Canadian athletes have won Olympic medals in many events in both the summer and winter games. In addition to hockey championships, Canadian athletes have won Olympic gold medals in equestrian events, in boxing, rowing, shooting, skiing, canoeing, swimming, in track and field sprints and hurdle races, in walking, jumping, and the marathon race. Canadians have also won Olympic figure skating and bob-sledding championships and I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that some of the events that have been discontinued at the Olympics, such as golf, Lacrosse and dog sled racing, were also won by Canadians.
Beyond these achievements, of course, athletes from every part of Canada have served as good-will ambassadors for our nation. By their conduct in the Olympic Games, these men and women have demonstrated the finest qualities that have won for Canada and Canadians a place of respect and admiration throughout the world. These Olympic athletes, Mr. Speaker, have also brought back to this country a heightened awareness of the sense of community between nations; that is one of the greatest benefits of the Olympic movement.

Three short years from now the 1976 Summer Olympic Games will take place in this country. All hon. members must surely recognize that such an occasion should prompt us to double our efforts so as to train athletes who will be able to take part in those games with honour and pride. The difficulties and costs inherent in trips abroad have sometimes limited our participation in Olympic Games in the past, but I am convinced that all Canadian people will share the hope that every one of the young 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.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps is it the first time in the history of the Olympic Games that the idea of their self-financing is seriously put to the test. COJO set itself the objective of holding simpler games, less costly and more in accordance with the Olympic ideals as regards participation and competition on an international scale.
COJO decided deliberately to put a stop to the astronomical increases in the cost of the Olympic Games since the Second World War.
The organizers of the 1976 Olympic Games have adopted the attitude that the most important contribution Canada can make to international sport is to prove conclusively that the Olympic Games can be held without any costly extravagances or any resulting decrease in honour or dignity, and that cost and income can be such as to enable the games to really finance themselves.
Similarly, hon. members know that the federal government has made its attitude known whereby it would not accept the responsibility for any deficit.
Olympic Bill

The government of Quebec, the city of Montreal and COJO have recognized our position in this regard and have given their assurances in writing that the federal government will not be asked to provide special funding for the Olympic Games, given that we provide the required legislation to permit operation of the revenuegenerating schemes identified in this bill.
The legislation before the House seeks to assist COJO in making the 1976 summer Olympic games self-financing, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I hope that hon. members on both sides will lend to the bill the support and encouragement that I know they will extend to those who are dedicated to the achievement of an Olympic celebration in which all Canadians will take pride.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, first, I should like to thank the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) for more or less outlining to us the bill in question which, of course, I think we have all read. It is always nice to have your memory refreshed, especially with regard to a celluloid bill like this one. I am also happy to note that the minister is continuing with the precedent that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other ministers set in the past on this issue, namely, that of uncertainty and confusion, by not stating any firm government policy.
For the first time in our history, Mr. Speaker, Canada will play host to the Olympic games in 1976 and, as a party, we wish to ensure that these games are a success. Instead of reflecting on the brilliant achievement of one of our major cities in obtaining the Olympic games and instead of considering the fact that Canada was successful in being awarded the games against competition from countries such as the United States and Soviet Russia, we find ourselves bitterly locked in political gamesmanship. All too often one hears the statement that had the Olympic games been awarded to any other Canadian city, federal funding would have been assured. From the outset the Prime Minister has never made it clear to this House or to the Canadian people that he is either for or against the Olympics or the things for which they stand.
It is unfortunate that a shroud of government secrecy has surrounded the entire Olympic event from as far back as 1968 when the Prime Minister indicated in a letter that Canada would be pleased to host the 1976 Olympics. Since that time, an air of confusion has been conveyed, not only to members of this House but to all of the people of Canada. For example, on January 9, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), whether the government had yet reached a decision in connection with federal financial participation in the Montreal Olympics in 1976. In his reply, the minister told the hon. member that the Montreal Olympics were not under his administrative jurisdiction. The hon. member then put the question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford), who replied that " . . . the federal position has not changed from that stated by the Prime Minister in the House some time ago."
On January 25, I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs whether the minister was prepared to approve the

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
proposed scheme involving stamps, coins, and lotteries for the financing of the games. The minister replied that those proposals and requests were still being analyzed by the department. Also on January 25, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked whether the Prime Minister could give the assurance that Canada was not going to make a contribution to the Olympic games. The Prime Minister replied that, " ... there would be no special assistance, no special financial aid from the federal government to Montreal or to COJO for the holding of the Olympics". It has been this secrecy and confusion that has given rise to suspicion and regional jealousies which would never have arisen had the government been open in its dealings, had the government been prompt in presenting legislation at an early and reasonable time, and had the government in fact simply let the Canadian people know the facts.
Instead of the anti-Olympic, anti-Canadian remarks being expressed by such bigoted opportunists as sports writers Jim Coleman, Dick Beddoes and others, we would have had at this time a feeling of unity in this country as never before. Had the government acted on this issue at the appropriate time, and had the government not left this legislation to the eleventh hour, there would have been an opportunity to decentralize the games and participation in diverse sections of our country could have been a reality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: As far back as 1968, government support of the 1976 Olympics was assured, but now we are looking at a situation where the Prime Minister has assured the people of this country that no grant will be forthcoming for our Olympic games. In effect, after giving Canadian guarantees to the Olympics, the Prime Minister has now apparently washed his hands of the entire affair, washed his hands to such an extent that it appears any deficit incurred in the games has been foisted onto Montreal, Quebec and COJO. Does the Prime Minister no longer consider Quebec a part of Canada?
Why has the Prime Minister failed to expound on the overwhelming benefits that will be derived by this country? Why has he not advanced the fact that Canada will receive worldwide advertising over the next four years? Why has the Prime Minister failed to explain the countless benefits that will accrue to Canadians from the worldwide multinational event, an event which will in a dramatic way affect the physical and mental wellbeing of the youth of our nation? The government has expended millions upon millions of dollars on Opportunities for Youth programs in this country. Can there be any greater opportunity for youth than the Olympic games?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Even though there will be approximately
8,000	athletes competing in the Olympic games in Montreal and Kingston in 1976, millions will have participated in reaching that event. It is inconceivable that with so many people depending upon Canada, this entire matter has been delayed so long. Planning for staging and financing the games has proceeded not because of, but in spite of,

this government's actions. But the course of the Olympics is planned. The terms of financing have been spelled out. Where the government has avoided its responsibility, COJO has accepted its obligation. We support the Olympics and the benefits that will be derived by all Canadians.
Because of the lateness of this bill, we are reluctantly forced to support in principle this ill-timed, poorly worded and ambiguous document as well. However, we want to see a number of changes in the bill and will propose these changes, in a concrete form, when this bill comes to the committee stage. For the time being, I want to make it clear we are particularly concerned that there is no mention in the bill of a ceiling on the amount of coins which can be minted. Perhaps the amount should be limited to the number sufficient to ensure the payment of $250 million. The bill provides that the post office is authorized to promote the sale of the coins. The post office cannot properly promote the delivery of mail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: We believe the post office is not the proper authority to administer the distribution and merchandising of Olympic coins. We believe the Mint should issue the coins through the chartered banks of Canada. We will also be demanding accredited market forecasts and distribution allotments. The federal government must be aware of its responsibilities on Olympic financing. To date, details of financing and government statements concerning the issue are vague and uninformative.
The most important and crucial omission in the bill is that of the request for an annual audit and general report to parliament. The terms and conditions of the bill are such that there is no basis for calculation. The public, whose moneys are being used to subsidize the games and who looked on in disbelief at the unbelievable symmetry of the Olympic budget, are now no more aware of what will be spent than before the bill was presented. To date, the only information we have received from the federal government regarding the Olympic financing plan is that it will run a $172 million deficit. This does little to encourage us to support the bill.
Is the government now denying the accuracy of its Treasury Board report? In addition, Mr. Speaker, the manufacture, distribution and sale of "postal-related products" could have a damaging effect on the Canadian arts and crafts business, as these postal related products are not adequately defined and are open to the decision of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). The four years, 1973-76 inclusive, could provide an economic boom period for Canadian craftsmen through the sale of Olympic commemorative items for the tourist trade. At the present time craftsmen are restricted by the Patent Act and the Criminal Code from the reproduction of any official symbol of government in Canada. If these postal-related products are not defined more clearly or at least itemized, a situation will exist where the post office, established with public funds but with low overhead costs, is in direct competition with private individuals who are trying to make a profit for themselves.
If this activity is restricted to the post office, there could be a high degree of patronage with reference to tenders for the manufacture and promotion of these items. In this
June 28, 1973

situation, it should be strongly suggested that the bill be changed to disallow this practice on behalf of the post office which essentially should be specializing solely in postal services, not free enterprise activities. The Postmaster General will be responsible for the distribution of the stamps and postal-related products. This will be accomplished by federal authorization of agents to distribute these items in and outside of Canada, on a commission fixed by the regulation of the Postmaster General.
The Criminal Code, Part V, will be suspended to allow the Olympic Organizing Committee to stage a national lottery. COJO or its agents will conduct and manage the lottery system in the provinces according to the regulations made by the governor in council. It is true that all provinces are given the right to either approve or disapprove the lottery, but apparently have no say on the terms or conditions governing its operation. This severely limits the powers allotted to the provinces in Part V, Section 190(B) of the Criminal Code, whereby a provincial lottery can operate in another province in conjunction with that province. The wording of Bill C-196 is such that the province can only set the condition of the length of time during which the lottery can be run within its boundaries.
Getting back to the games themselves, we must remember that the Olympic games do not belong only to Montreal, nor do they belong only to Quebec any more than they belong to Kingston or to Ontario, as we will probably hear from the NDP. The fact is that the 1976 Olympic games belong to Canada, to Canadians and to millions of people throughout the world. Athletes, trainers, diplomats, heads of state and everyday citizens from over 120 countries will be gathering in Canada to compete in the 21 sports disciplines recognized by the International Olympic Committee. For the past 74 years, Canadian Olympic teams have received the warm hospitality of many countries, namely, Germany, Mexico, Japan, Italy, Australia, Finland, Great Britain and from many more countries in a distant past. Our teams have been recruited from every part of this great nation and have represented us well, not by city or province, but as a country. As we are well aware, every athlete who receives Olympic recognition receives that recognition on behalf of his country, even to the degree that the National Anthem of his country is played in honour of his victory. There is a pride shared not only by the athlete involved, but by every citizen of his country who watches the awards take place.
I doubt, Mr. Speaker, that there are any members here who can remember the city or even the state that Mark Spitz came from, but we all know that he won an unprecedented seven gold medals for the United States. Nor can we ignore the pride felt by every Canadian who recently watched Karen Magnusson bring home a gold medal for her years of practice and effort. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I emphatically reject any suggestion or inference that the Olympic games are not representative of all Canada and I reject the bias of those who would suggest that all true Canadians will do anything other than support the Olympic games to be held in Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Olympic Bill


Otto John Jelinek: The 1976 Olympic games represent a national challenge. With personal pride, and with participation from all Canadians from Newfoundland to British Columbia, these games will be a success.
Sports in this country are not restricted to any particular section or province. The Pan-American games were recently held in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The Canada games will be held this summer in Burnaby, British Columbia. The Commonwealth games will be held in Edmonton, Alberta in 1978. The Canada games will be held in Halifax, Nova Scotia. These games are all part of a movement involving youth in our country. Starting in the very earliest grades of our schools, children participate in school sports. They compete for honours during their sports days and they compete in subsequent events held in their local divisions, their area divisions and eventually provincial divisions. Just as these games both locally and provincially are gathering places for the youth of any region, so are the Olympic games the gathering point of the entire world. Can anyone deny the ability of amateur sports to build the minds and bodies of our youth? The importance of the Olympics must not be underestimated in its immeasurable value to the well-being of the young people of this and every other country actively involved in healthy competition.
A great deal has been said regarding the ability of the Olympic games committee, the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec to finance this project without federal funding. In this regard I feel it is crucial to discuss one of the aims of the 21st Olympiad. Not only will the 1976 Olympic games be a great monument for Canada but it will confirm in the eyes of the world the ability of Canada to bring back a more human and modest dimension to the games. Canada has the opportunity to be the first country to propose and successfully implement a program of selffinancing for the games.
There is little doubt that the extravagance of the 1972 Olympics can be duplicated, let alone improved on, bearing in mind the ever-increasing costs. To this end, I believe that the Olympic games and the whole Olympiad movement is now at an historical crossroad. The games could go on becoming bigger, larger and more expensive, from one Olympiad to the other, and in this way they would remain the sole property of the very few rich countries of the world. On the other hand, they could be brought back to a more modest scale, to a more human dimension, and thus become accessible to less fortunate countries-the true ideal of the Olympic movement-and Canada will have been the first to do this.
It is important, then, when we talk about financing, that we bear in mind that the 1976 games are being prepared and will be organized in this spirit and with that objective foremost in the minds of those producing this event. This should be of paramount importance to all concerned with the financial aspects when they compare the expenses incurred in the Munich production. As I stated to this House on January 16, I believe that Montreal is the city most able to cope with the problems that would be faced by staging the games in Canada. It is important to understand that in no way can the expenses of Munich be compared to the expenses to be incurred in Montreal. Munich started with nothing and had to build every facili-

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
ty that was used during the games. In Montreal over 70 per cent of the facilities to be used are already in existence, so the cost factor has been dramatically reduced. I have in the past urged decentralization of the games to take advantage of existing facilities without having to contend with duplication, in this manner saving countless millions of dollars.
The Olympic committee is studying recommendations such as this but, unfortunately, it appears that such changes will not be possible in time for the 1976 Olympics. Once again this might not have been the case had the government acted in the early stages, and not left this bill until the eleventh hour. Decentralization, however, even on a wide scale may become a reality for future Olympic meets. Such action will further reduce the costs to other nations who wish to bid for subsequent Olympic games. Options or alternatives of this nature are one way of reducing the high cost of staging the Olympic games.
Of prime concern is the apparent variance in the estimates of the income derived from the sale of the coins of the federal authorities and the Olympic committee. The COJO proposal indicates that $250 million will be raised through the sale of specially minted coins, which represents approximately 80 per cent of the total budget. With the millions of coin collectors throughout the world, and with the variety of coins offered as compared to the limited number offered in Germany, it should be safe to assume that the demand will reach the expectations. Interest is of such a scale that distribution has been virtually assured through banks and commercial organizations throughout the world.
However, Mr. K. O. Grant of the Royal Canadian Mint, who will be working on the Mint's behalf with the proposed Post Office Marketing Board, has outlined a rather vague and indecisive program to ensure that the coins will not circulate. The plan is much the same as that used for the Expo 1967 coin issues. It calls for attractive packaging of the Olympic coins, without any additional charge for the casing. The psychology behind this is to make the packaging as attractive as possible, with the result that the purchaser will not be inclined to use the coin as legal tender. This method is now under study in conjunction with the Mint and the Post Office. Another method being considered is that of packaging the coins in cases that cannot be broken without damaging the contents. These means of keeping the coins out of circulation are being intensively studied, as Mr. Grant maintains that it would be disastrous if the coins were used as legal tender. One possible suggestion for consideration in committee would be to place a premium on these coins, virtually assuring that they will remain as collectors items and will not find their way into circulation.
With regard to objections concerning postal-related products and the failure precisely to define this meaning, it is only natural that concern would be voiced. Once again the government submits for hasty approval a bill that is badly needed, but at the same time is vague in areas where specifics are demanded. It should be an easy task for the Postmaster General's office fully and clearly to define the meaning of "postal-related products" so that this House will know just what it is voting on. I am confident,

however, that this will not be a difficult problem to overcome, even for the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet).
In so far as the lottery itself is concerned, each province must give its approval before sales can take place in that province. In addition to a percentage designated to offset the cost, namely 10 per cent, an additional 5 per cent is being retained by the province and will be used for the support of amateur sport within that province. It only stands to reason that failure to provide adequate safeguards to the province concerned would mean that that province would not give its authority for distribution, and the intent of the program to raise money would be defeated. One of the main reasons that we have not yet received approval for the lottery from all provinces is that they do not yet have enough information, nor can they be assured that this bill will ever be enacted, once again pointing to the government's failure to act at the early stages and leaving the matter until the last moment.
Certainly there are questions which must be asked and must be raised concerning the Prime Minister's continued statements that no aid will be forthcoming from the federal government. Why does he continue to mislead this House and the Canadian people when, for example, on February 2, in his announcement on the Olympics, he stated that the federal government, through CMHC, could be spending between $26 million and $54 million on the Olympic village; that in addition it would cost approximately $20 million for increased costs for security, customs or immigration; and that the CBC, as host broadcaster, would provide basic television service at a cost of $25 million, all of which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has once again just brought to our attention? But there have been contradictory statements, and I am wondering why the Prime Minister is afraid to be honest by openly admitting that the federal government will be spending significant sums of money for the 1976 Olympics.
The over-riding theme, the over-riding purpose and the over-riding goals will be lost in this shuffle. We must consider the millions upon millions of dollars that will be brought into this country and turned back into the treasury in the form of business and income taxes, and in the form of employment for thousands of Canadians all across this nation. Over the next four years and thereafter our country will be advertised abroad on a scale previously unknown in our history. The value here cannot be measured in terms of dollars and cents but, if it must be, then I personally hesitate to imagine a figure of that magnitude.
The true value, the real value and the real meaning of the Olympics itself lies with the youth of our country and, in fact, the youth of all countries. I do not believe we can put a price on the Olympics, for the Olympics is a state of mind, a state of well being; it is a sense of belonging and a sense of participation. To win a gold medal is the goal of every athlete and the Olympics offer this opportunity. But to bring together the youth of our country, and of all countries, in a spirit of healthy competition is an even greater opportunity.
I have made the view of my party clear. We want the Olympic games in 1976 to be a truly Canadian triumph. In a world as divided as ours, such events as the Olympics,
June 28, 1973

when young people gather from around the world to compete on the sports field, must be preserved for our children. So because we pledge our support for the Olympics, I therefore support the second reading of the bill and its referral to the committee so that we may incorporate the eminently sensible safeguards I have just suggested.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in stark contrast to the two previous speakers, my party and I do not, and I repeat "not", intend to support Bill C-196 on second reading. We have come to this view after some lengthy thought and caucus discussion as to the implications of our position. We recognize also that our opposition to Bill C-196 is a departure from the position I, personally, took last February in my response to the Prime Minister's statement on motions, which at that time was intended to assure the House that any deficit accruing from the games would not be borne by the federal government. I suppose our opposition to Bill C-196 will be widely interpreted or misinterpreted as being either sanctimoniously anti-sport or equally bigoted anti-French.


An Hon. Member:: Both.


Mark Willson Rose: Or perhaps misinterpreted as both by those people who do not know any better. If such a misinterpretation prevails my party and I regret it, because our vote against Bill C-196 means neither. I should like to state unequivocally here and now that the NDP is not opposed to sport per se. We support it and wish to broaden the base of sport to include the greatest possible participation at all levels of society. We do not oppose amateur sport at the international level either, or even the concept of the Olympic games. What we do oppose, however, is the continuation of this kind of Olympics, an Olympics so demanding in time, energy and money that hosting the games is denied to most of the nations of the world. In fact as now conceived, because of the massive resources required to stage the games, the modern Olympics has been virtually limited to five or six major cities of our globe.
We believe that the international Olympics should be so structured as to be far less expensive and far less elitist in its preoccupation with only the country's finest athletes, and the extra resources realized by a less expensive Olympics used to broaden the base of the athletic pyramid to provide more facilities at the community level, making participation sports more accessible to many whose major contact with sport is that of the t.v. observer.
Dealing with the second point of possible misinterpretation of our position, that of being anti-French Canadian, precisely the opposite is the case. Our party on the national level has a history of being intensely sensitive to the cultural, linguistic and economic aspirations of French Canadians, and even the most cursory look at our Commons voting record will prove this.
Our opposition to Bill C-196 can be regarded, therefore, as being perfectly consistent with our party's concern for the well-being of Francophones, because we can see very little in the plans of the forthcoming Montreal Olympics that will in any meaningful way improve the lot of the average citizen of that city. Quite the contrary, anyone even remotely familiar with Montreal's problems over the years could not fail to conclude that anyone supporting
Olympic Bill
the spending of in excess of $500 million on what columnist Dick Beddoes has described as a carnival of sweat must have something seriously wrong with his sense of priorities.
Montreal has been described by urban sociologist Saul Aulinski as having an incredible slum housing problem of such magnitude as to equal and surpass any city in North America. The public housing record of Montreal in recent years, in terms of construction, has been about equal to that of Saskatoon. In addition, it has been said that almost
400,000	children in Montreal suffer from lack of adequate nutrition. Recreational needs of these children have also been overlooked, and adding to their social-recreational-economic disadvantages is the fact that totally untreated sewage spews forth so unrelentently into the St. Lawrence River at Montreal the river has become unusable for the recreational needs of its millions of inhabitants.
Despite the appalling lack of recreational space in Montreal, the Mayor's initial proposal for the location of the Olympic Village cum-public housing was to create a low-cost urban ghetto in a park greenbelt area by encroaching on part of a golf course. This location has been opposed by at least 66,000 citizen petitioners and questioned by the Hon. Victor Goldbloom, the Minister responsible for the quality of the environment in the province of Quebec.
Would it not be far better in terms of genuine human priorities for Canadians to spend at least half of the $500 million Olympic price tag on improved housing and sewage treatment for the city of Montreal? I, for one, would be pleased to give my share personally through my taxes for such purposes, but I object strongly to the financing of sport facilities through gimmicks such as coins, stamps and lotteries, especially in a city with so many other desperate needs, and particularly for facilities which, after the two-week athletic potlach is concluded, will not be used for the benefit of the average Quebecer and Canadian at all. These stadia facilities, paid for out of public funds, will be used to further the interests of the well-heeled American and Canadian moguls, beer barons, who dominate the North American professional sports industry, and who are in it not for sport at all but just for the bucks.


Otto John Jelinek: It will be used by Canadian athletes and the Canadian public.


Mark Willson Rose: Some will say that whether or not the $70 million Olympic stadium becomes the new home of an NFL franchise from the states or the Expo baseball team is no one's business but that of the citizens of Montreal. In fact, I have said so myself, but I am not so sure about it today, since all Canadians will be contributing to the construction of the stadium. In any case, the citizens of Montreal should be warned that except for their predetermined role as consumers of sport, not participants, access to the publicly-built sport complexes in other cities in North America has been effectively denied to amateur sport participants, and this includes the Vancouver Coliseum.
Perhaps I have spent rather too long on what some members might regard as an attack on Montreal and its people. If it came out this way, it was not intended so and I am sorry. But, if on the other hand, my words convey a

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
criticism of the administration of Montreal, its goals and the attention that administration gives to the real needs of its citizens, I am not sorry at all; I did it deliberately. I, for one, cannot see how another Montreal extravaganza will do anything at all for its citizens. In fact, I assume that the Montreal mayor will be so personally preoccupied with the Olympic hoopla over the next few years that Montreal will receive even less of the mayor's scant attention than it has received up until now.
Concerning the motives behind the New Democratic Party's objection to the bill before us, may I say that no matter how hard one may try to disguise the fact nor what assurance the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is likely to give or has given us, it is a fact that the people of Canada will pay for the Montreal Olympics in 1976. There is no escape from that fact. I think it is wise at this point to outline just how much money the people of Canada will have to pay. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has kindly given us the latest escalated figures. There is an amount of $14 million for the RCMP and an amount of something like $10 million for the Department of National Defence. There is a package of $27 million for security. While the expenditure of this money may turn Montreal once more into an armed camp to ward off tragedies similar to those encountered in Mexico City and Munich-and they were real tragedies and one would not want them for Montreal-I think all of us will recognize that security expenditures are necessary and normal for state and royal visits and for large events of the kind planned for Montreal in the year 1976. So, we are not criticizing what we regard as normal security expenditures.
Then, because COJO has asked CBC to act as host broadcaster to assist foreign broadcasters and because the Olympics is not a CBC national priority, our federal government is obligated to subsidize the Olympic coverage by at least $25 million. One can only wonder why CBC was not awarded the contract to act as world distributor for Olympic television and radio as one wonders about what kind of a non-tendered deal was made to COJO at the time the American Broadcasting Corporation was awarded for $25 million the lucrative American Commercial rights. Is this just another ripoff in which the public again picks up the cost items and the private entrepreneurs are granted the profitable ones?
And then there are the CMHC costs of $26 million to $54 million for public housing. As I mentioned earlier, Montreal has a dismal history in the construction of public housing. Unfortunately, the $50 million Quebec share of federal housing moneys has not been used, despite rotten housing conditions faced by many of Montreal's inhabitants. Now, all of a sudden, because of the necessity of constructing an Olympic village, the acquisition of federal money has become highly desirable. So, it indicates to me that "jocks" come first in Montreal.
So much for direct federal involvement which adds up to a neat package of roughly $100 million, more or less. But to deal with the guts of Bill C-196, which proposes to raise the bulk of the Olympic budget through a gimmicky package of commemorative stamps, coins and the authorization of a lottery, I admit that last February I did not object to

the coins, stamps and lottery proposals. However, at that time I excused myself by saying that I had not had an opportunity to examine their implications as fully as I have in the last few months. The stamps and lottery proposals have their own problems, the details of which will be discussed fully by speakers from my party following me. However, let us take the coin issue and my fundamental reservations to the concept which may be summarized as follows: First, their issuance contributes to inflation; second, there exists a world silver shortage; third, as legal tender, some coins are bound to circulate in Canada; fourth and finally, it is doubtful that we will sell all of them and therefore will end up with a deficit anyway.
To deal with points one and two, present plans call for the issuance over the next four years of $417 million in silver coinage, which is more than the silver coinage- valued at $317 million-that is in circulation in Canada at the moment. Selected coin denominations at the moment of $5 and $10 must contain sufficient silver to provide the "heft" necessary to be attractive to collectors. It has been estimated that the special Olympic coins will require 51 million troy ounces at $2 an ounce. Recently, Canada has been required to reserve its role as a silver exporting nation and was forced to import 714 million ounces last year to meet industrial demands alone. I believe Canadian industry can do more productive things with this silver in manufacturing rather than having it buried in coin collections.
On point three, the President of the Treasury Board has told us that the denominations selected, although legal tender, are $5 and $10 and are chosen to discourage the circulation of this money for purchases in Canada. Although no mention of it is made in the bill, the minister proposes a monitoring system with the banks and the subtraction of any amount in circulation from the Olympic seigniorage paid from Consolidated Revenue to COJO's Olympic fund. This sounds fine so far as it goes, but it is my concern that this monitoring system will be no more effective than, I suspect, the one proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on the corporate concessions or that of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) proposed in respect of monitoring food price increases. The probability,' therefore, is that substantial numbers of these coins will circulate as legal tender, if not immediately then in the future, and because of the magnitude of the $417 million offering proposed, the issue might even be discounted as was the case with the Mexican and Munich coins. If this indeed happens, the raid on the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be compounded because, after donating the 60 per cent normal treasury profit to the Olympics, the Canadian people will be forced to pick up an equivalent amount to guarantee the face value of any coin exchanged by the banks and subsequently redeemed by the government.
In dealing with point four, the magnitude of the coin issue is gargantuan because almost 80 per cent of the Olympic budget is dependent on this single coin project alone, and this fact is at once staggering and frightening. To put the coin issue in some comparative context, the replacement series of coins in Canada's centennial package sold for an estimated total of $30 million. West Germany, with a population of 60 million, tried to sell $354
June 28, 1973

million worth of coins to its inhabitants and to visitors, but found it could dispose of only about two-thirds or $179 million. Is Canada the last of the big-time spenders? Apparently blind to the experiences of other countries, Canada proposes to market over $400 million worth of these coins. Reluctantly, I join with a host of others who doubt that this can be done, even over a period of three years.
One thing is certain, however; whatever happens, the people of Canada will have given the Olympic games upward of $200 million through the federal government's yielding of the normal profit on coins, or seigniorage. They have donated this amount. If these coins do not sell, then the Olympics, like Expo '67, will show a loss and Canadians will pick up this loss in one way or another. Whether it is the Canadians who live in Quebec who will be forced to pick up the deficit because of the Prime Minister's assurances of no extra federal subsidy, whether they are forced to pick it up through higher taxes because it is laid at the door of the Quebec government and the city of Montreal, or whether the deficit will be spread over the total Canadian population, is largely incidental and irrelevant in my opinion. A group of Canadians will be forced to pick up this deficit.
No one likes to be constantly negative and pessimistic, and especially since my party tends to be associated with the doom sayer and hand wringer image. Boosters, of course, are more welcome than knockers, but I have moved over the last four months from a reluctant acceptance of the Olympics to a sober reappraisal. People like Toronto's Reverend Don Stirling and W. O. Johnson in his book about Olympics "All That Glitters Is Not Gold", and as well as others have impressed me greatly with their arguments. In his examination of the arguments in favour of the Olympics, Mr. Stirling puts forth each one, and then goes on to topple each in its turn. What are the favourable social considerations advanced?
First of all, it is asserted that the Olympics are worth while because they provide an arena for the finest amateur athletes in the world. That is nonsense. The recent Olympics have been an incredibly expensive showcase at state expense for the elite of sport, those young people, and I give them great credit, who must sacrifice years for the single goal of athletic excellence in their field. This may not be so bad if they care to do it. I do not think we should be critical of that side of it, but let us not say that these people are amateurs. They are not amateurs and cannot be. All athletes of Olympic calibre receive some sort of athletic benefit or support, but they still have to swear an Olympic oath that they have never benefited financially from their athletic ability.
I hope that the things I have said on this particular point do not denigrate in any way the excellent efforts of Canadian athletes or their coaches. Some of you may have been with me last spring, I believe, during the proud moment when we honoured Canada's Olympic athletes at the National Arts Centre in our capital. We saw then Nancy Greene and the men from Moose Jaw who won the gold medals for the equestrian events. We heard from cyclist, Torchy Peden from Victoria, and we were introduced that evening to Barbara Ann Scott. It was a great
Olympic Bill
moment for many Canadians who are interested in sports. Any one who attended that event could not help but be moved by the experience. Anything I say about athletes now I hope will not be taken as a denigration of their accomplishments. Canadians have nothing but pride in the accomplishments of Canadian athletes at the Olympics for their high levels of attainment.
The second point advanced in favour of the Olympics is that Olympics are worthwhile because they further physical fitness and healthy athletic endeavour. Certainly, Olympic athletes benefit, at least in the area of their specialty. No one could deny that. But the games benefit relatively few gifted athletes, and the populace, the general mass of participants, are by and large ignored. They can watch the games on television. This is especially true of Canadians, and Russ Kirby, in his book "Participation in Sports", estimates that the physical fitness of a 30 year old Canadian male is roughly equivalent to that of a 60 year old Swede.


Otto John Jelinek: That is why we need the Olympics in Canada.


Mark Willson Rose: The third point advanced in favour of the Olympics is that the Olympic games further goodwill internationally and therefore are worthwhile. It may have been true once. I am not that ancient-although I am developing a number of grey hairs-that my experience would go back to the Athenian games, but-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: But Stanley was there.


Mark Willson Rose: The history of the recent Olympics from the times of the Berlin games sponsored by that great humanitarian Adolph Hitler-incidentally a man much admired by Avery Brundage, the venerable Olympic top dog-is one of nationalistic rivalry and a good deal of bitterness. In the last few games we saw tragedies through assassinations and student protests. For recent examples, see Mexico student protests and Munich Black September assassinations.
Finally, the fourth point advanced in favour of the games is that the 1976 Olympics will be worthwhile because the games will stimulate tourism and employment. It may do that, but both Mexico and Munich experienced a brief tourist boom during the games, followed by a devastating slump. No reasons, of course, have been advanced for this. As for the building boom and resulting employment, it is the contention of my party that more lasting benefits from the transfusion of millions of dollars could be achieved through slum clearance, transportation and pollution control in the city of Montreal.
So much for the arguments and counter arguments articulated by Mr. Stirling and others. It appears to us, therefore, that there are substantial economic, social and political costs and benefits accruing from any proposal, whether for Olympics or not. Anyway, as I have been able to weigh the evidence at my disposal in terms of the cost and benefit, I would not argue with the point made by the previous speaker-how did he put it-that the Olympics is the spirit-


Otto John Jelinek: I said that and more than you are saying.

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill


Mark Willson Rose: I think he said it was a state of mind. I would not go so far as to suggest that his mind has been unhinged. We might have heard about the various costs and benefits, but the ones I have been able to weigh-and they are the tangible ones, not the intangible ones like the spirit, the image, and that kind of thing-lead me to believe that the Canadian people, and more particularly the people of Montreal, are losers. I had hoped that during the past four months we might have heard about plans for a far less expensive Olympics. I looked forward to an indication that the games might be dispersed over a wider area of central Canada, with Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto and Quebec city joining Kingston as sites for some of the events at least. I had hoped that the wrangling about the location for the village might have ceased and the people of Montreal might have been at least partially satisfied that their long term interests were being considered seriously by their civic and provincial administration. However, not a thing has happened to allay my misgivings or to dispel my fears that the Drapeau predilection for grandstanding and extravaganzas has diminished one iota.
Even the Treasury Board estimates in January of the forthcoming Olympic deficit of nearly $200 million-or $173 million according to the documents tabled-have never been seriously challenged. I think it is conservative to suggest that the games will cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million. The Munich experience started out at $150 million and ended at $700 million. Montreal started at $310 million-and we do not know where it is going to go from there. The President of the Treasury Board promised to keep us up to date on the escalating figures. He cannot even keep track of them, they are moving so quickly.
We are therefore being asked in this legislation "at no cost to the federal government" to put up $200 million or 80 per cen of the $310 million games budget with no real assurance that the target will be met. If raising money by issuing special coins, stamps, etc. is such a good idea and, to paraphrase the government, will not cost the country a cent, why does the Government of Canada not consider this suggestion, which I am certain will find support among my hon. friends in the Social Credit party, and issue immediately to each of the two million plus old age pensioners a $20 legal currency Canadian coin? It will cost the treasury about $8 a pensioner to do this, and the seigniorage of $12 would become an inexpensive raise to each senior citizen.
Undoubtedly, most of the OAP coins would be squirrelled away as souvenirs, given to grandchildren, or even sold to coin collectors, either in Canada or abroad, and therefore would be of little direct cost to the treasury compared with the benefits, if we follow the logic of the President of the Treasury Board with regard to the Olympic Games. But this would do more for more people. Some pensioners, of course only the frivolous ones, might be tempted to fritter away their money on non-essentials like food, shelter and prescription drugs. However, strong social and fiscal sanctions could be developed and taken by the President of the Treasury Board to cope with that eventuality.

If the 1976 Olympic games are worthwhile at all, then they are worth funding by all Canadians. If they are not worthwhile, then they are not worth funding at all in any way, with gimmicks or otherwise. On balance, I do not think they are worthwhile and, therefore, despite the political risks involved, despite the flack I am going to get from the generally uncritical sports journalists, and despite the misrepresentation of my motives both in Quebec and in western Canada, I intend to vote against Bill C-196 on second reading.
I am not so naive as to believe that my opposition, or my party's opposition to the bill before us will kill the Olympic games. The momentum for the Olympic games is just too great. The winter Olympic games, of course, are a different kettle. The winter Olympics were recently stopped in Denver, and they were repudiated in Vancouver. But in going forward in the case of the Montreal Olympics, no critical aspect of the games should be hidden from the public who are going to pay for them in spite of the assurances to the contrary. I and my party will do all we can to make sure that no respect of the 1976 Olympics goes either unchallenged or unventilated.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who represents the riding of Mount Royal, comes into this House tomorrow and asks us to approve a federal expenditure of $500 million over the next few years for the sole purpose of building houses for the poor people of Montreal East, I am certain that my party and I will be the first to congratulate him and to support him on his legislation. I do not know if the hecklers across the aisle are through with their speeches, Mr. Speaker, but I am through with mine.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the first point of order upon which I have risen since I came to this House. I hope all hon. members will note that I have not used points of order unduly, but having listened to my hon. friend I think I must remark that he has unintentionally, no doubt, misled the House, because Vancouver did not repudiate the winter games bid this year. The Vancouver decision not to participate for 1976 was based on the proper thinking that they would not be ready in time for 1976 and again I say that my hon. friend, no doubt mistakenly, has misled the House in this regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think that the intervention by the hon. member for Vancouver South relates to something that could have been corrected during the debate, but it really is not a point of order. If we adopted the method of rising on a point of order every time we disagreed with each other in this place, I think we would all be speaking at once. I have said it before, and I am going to say it again, that I think it is a very bad practice for us to adopt. 1 can understand that sometimes when a person is faced with a limited debate which has to be concluded by 9.45, he would like to have a chance at least to get to the person with whom he disagrees. But this sort of thing-no. Really the present debate is wide open. There is no limitation, and there cannot be a limitation until everybody has had his or her say in this chamber.
I must ask, on behalf of the chair, to have a limitation on these points of so-called order raised by hon. members. I say this with great respect to the hon. member. I know
June 28, 1973

how I felt myself on occasion about things that were said and when I would want to get at the person making the statement. As I say, I know how he feels.


Mark Willson Rose: On the same point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no point of order really. I think that I have dealt with the matter. Perhaps we could go on to the next speaker.


Mark Willson Rose: Then, may I raise my own point of order? Perhaps I used up all my time on my speech but for clarification I would like to suggest that I did not intend to mislead the House. The hon. member thought I had suggested that Vancouver had repudiated the winter Olympics. May I remind the hon. member that Vancouver was acting as a city, and it was the Province of British Columbia that repudiated them initially.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This bears out exactly what I said a few minutes ago. Both hon. members have now done exactly the same thing. They are raising points of order to make points of contradiction to each other. This is the kind of thing that hurts us very much as an operation. So far as the occupants of the chair are concerned there is nothing we can do. We follow the practice that we put upon ourselves of listening to hon. members when they raise points of order, but the fact is that these are not points of order. I hope that hon. members will make our operation more meaningful by not insisting on their right to do that.


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, in 1976 a very grand event will take place in Canada: the holding of the Olympic Games in Montreal. It is an event of national importance which does not affect one city or one province but the whole country.
As a result, the government has a responsibility to ensure that the games are a complete success, to see that the people who come here to take part in them are happy to do so, and finally, in the event of financial difficulties, to be able to provide assistance needed.
The bill before us does not, unfortunately, include any provision that would allow the federal government to assume its full responsibilities, and which, in the event of a deficit, would allow the federal government to pay its share. The bill says only that Canadian coins will be minted and stamps issued. And we see that the federal government is going to become a travelling salesman, selling coins and stamps to Canadians and foreigners, that being the total extent of its participation, except for the $500,000 credit margin it is granting to the account it is going to establish for the Olympic Games.
This is what I would call, not passive, but neutral participation, for that is the extent of the government's involvement. Perhaps, under the circumstances, the government is listening to public opinion and as the New Democrats noted, it may have gathered that the rest of the country is not particularly in favour of giving too large hand-outs to Quebec. We saw how reticent western Canada was to organize a national lottery to finance the
Olympic Bill
Games. As long as the federal government will confine itself to be an agent or a seller of coins, it is disturbing for the success of the Olympics to ask oneself who will pay the bill, because one can presume that there will be a deficit at the end of it all. When one considers that the Olympic Games will cost $310 million, it is of course possible that even if they are a success there will be a deficit of a few millions.
I believe the province of Quebec and Montreal should not always be asked to pay for events like that. As for Expo 67, an event of that importance brings prestige to the country as a whole. Mayor Drapeau can be congratulated for the vitality he shows in the administration of his city. After Expo 67, to obtain that the 1976 Summer Olympic Games be held in Montreal calls for more encouragement than that from the federal government.
Having noted the reticence of the rest of the country, I wonder if it would not be better to have two Canadian delegations to the 1976 Summer Olympic Games: one English Canadian and one French Canadian. If memory serves me right, when the founder of modern Olympic Games implemented his plan it was a peace plan intended to allow all nations of the world to join, fraternize and meet. Then I wonder if we should not do the same thing in Canada to enable English Canadians to meet with French Canadians. I think it would not do any harm and it might lead to a better understanding when we have to pay the bill.
The importance of the games for Canada, and particularly for our young people cannot be stressed too strongly. According to the reports presented and the surveys done on physical fitness, Canadians not in very good shape and we are even among the least physically fit nations. The Olympic Games will play a very important part in that respect by motivating young people to exercise and develop. As the Olympic Games will play a positive role on the physical level they will also have a good moral influence and by organizing the games for all the nations of the world, Canada will participate to an even greater extent than in previous Olympiads. We will thus give our young people the opportunity to develop and give them something to do, thus indirectly fighting delinquency and creating a healthier climate throughout the country.
Though Canada has much to gain as regards the development of its youth, we will also benefit from the publicity that this event will bring to Canada. During those games, Canada will be in the headlines. We will make the front page in every country of the world; this means that through the tourists, through the businessmen who will come to Canada on that occasion, we will be able to discuss more easily investment and commercial transactions. Those are advantages Canada and the provinces will derive from the Games.
We will also benefit from them through the taxes, the income which will accrue to the federal, provincial and municipal governments. The federal government will make a considerable amount of money through the construction work done in Montreal, thanks to taxes of all kinds paid by Canadians and foreigners who will visit Canada.
This aspect could therefore incite the federal government to add a clause to the bill providing for the eventual

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
payment of any possible deficit. That weakness in the bill could be remedied.
If we will not speak of two types of federalism, one for English-speaking Canada and one for French-speaking Canada, if we will speak of national unity and integrity, we will have to take the means to achieve them.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to call it five o'clock.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa 28 June, 1973
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Roland A. Ritchie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 28th day of June, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows; the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt)-Air Canada-Explosion and fire on flight 141, Toronto to Calgary; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Regional Economic Expansion-Northern Ontario-Possible establishment of Crown corporation; the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark)-Multiculturalism-Authority of minister over public servants involved in program.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions for papers and public bills. I understand that the House is to proceed with Item No. 1 under private bills, Bill S-6.


Mr. Reid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder, after this bill is disposed of, if it is, if there could be an

order of the House to the effect that we shall revert to the consideration of the Olympic Games bill until 5.45 p.m., at which time we would proceed with Royal Assent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. One point must be clarified. It is the impression of the Chair that the House is to deal with the two private bills on the order paper.


John Mercer Reid: No, Mr. Speaker, we shall deal just with one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed that after we have completed Bill S-6 we shall revert to government orders?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to agree to that, but I hope that the hon. member who was speaking just before five o'clock and who has left the chamber will be informed, so that he is not taken by surprise. It is not my responsibility to look after Social Credit members, but I do not mind helping them out once in a while.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I did not consult my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Boisvert), to know whether he is ready to go on with his remarks on a few minutes' notice. I do not know whether he went back to his office. In any case, I think we should exercise patience for a little while in order to have his own answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair might have this patience. As a matter of fact, I must point out to the hon. member that I think the difficulty has been solved and the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Boisvert) will go on with his remarks within a few minutes.
[ English]
Is it agreed that after the bill has been disposed of we will revert to government orders?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre) moved: that Bill S-6, respecting Centre Amusement Co. Limited, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to revive the charter of a company which, because of falling afoul of the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act in failing through inadvertence to file its annual return, has had invoked against it section 133(11), which provides that the charter shall be forfeit in such an eventuality.
June 28, 1973

The company in question is known as Centre Amusement Co. Limited. That name simply refers to a company which formerly operated the Centre theatre on Sparks Street Mall. It was a small company, with few shareholders. The two major shareholders died within a short period of one another. Following their deaths there was a dispute with respect to the administration of the estate, which has further complicated matters, and the matter of the filing of the annual return of the company. In order to deal with the small assets of the company it is necessary to have the charter of the company revived. That is the sole and only purpose of this bill.
I quite agree that it is unusual to come before the House on such a matter, and I would think that the appropriate and proper way to do it would be to empower the minister to deal with this type of thing by way of regulations under the Canada Corporations Act.
Those are my only words of explanation. In sum, this bill would say, if passed, that the notice, as given, which in effect dissolved the company, would be deemed not to have been given. I ask hon. members to give that consideration and, if the bill is read the second time, to refer it to the appropriate committee for further study.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In accordance with the arrangement made earlier, the House will now revert to the consideration of government orders, namely, Bill C-196.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the hon. Mr. Drury that Bill C-196, an Act respecting the 1976 Summer Olympic Games, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, to continue in a more constructive way than the previous speaker, I will say that our party will support the bill, not because it is deemed adequate, but at least we will not be cutting off mayor Drapeau's supplies and he will not be prevented from obtaining the expected revenue. Moreover, the Olympic Games-which I called a while ago a marvellous and grand event-will not be a huge failure, as would happen if there were eventually no funds available for the organization of the Games.
Olympic Bill
Our party will therefore vote for this bill, although we would have preferred greater government participation. Personally, I would suggest that the federal government pay half of any deficit there might be, because it is an event of national importance. The City of Montreal could pay one quarter and the province of Quebec the other quarter. I think that that would be a fair arrangement since, as I have said, the whole country will benefit from these Games.
It might be preferable to settle the matter today, rather than waiting for the situation to arise, because a deficit can be expected. I do not believe that they are going to sell billions of dollars worth of coins and stamps. That solution is a bit far-fetched. In fact, if only $175 million was raised at Munich, which is in a country of 75 million people, it is going to be hard to raise $300 million in Montreal when, as we know, Canada's population is one third that of Germany. Even considering that the standard of living in Canada is higher than in Germany or in Europe generally, it is quite clear that this single method of financing the Olympic Games might be disastrous.
Another aspect of the bill to which I object is that it is an indirect form of taxation. Some poor families will be buying $5 or $10 coins though they can't really afford it. Government participation would be much more desirable, much more useful, and of greater service to the people of this country.
[ English]


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against this bill.

I will try to explain the various reasons which lead me, after much thought on the matter, to vote, unfortunately, against the organization of the Olympic Games as planned and set up by the Mayor of Montreal.
I shall quote documents tabled in the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last February 2, including a letter written by Mr. Drapeau to Mr. Munro, the then Minister of National Health and Welfare responsible for sport. In his letter of November 18, 1968 he said, and I quote:
. . . we do not therefore feel obliged to request special grants from higher levels of government as a condition for holding the 1976 Games. Nevertheless, we are not giving up the advantages we can derive from existing or future legislation. But we are not making this a condition of our invitation to the International Olympic Committee.
The federal government's role, therefore, is to ensure that the athletes and officials recognized as such by the International Olympic Committee are admitted . . .
Less than a year ago, on August 15, 1972, the Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Drapeau, and I quote part of a letter from among the documents tabled last February 2:
... In spite of repeated requests by federal officials, we have not yet received, as far as I know, any precise information on the preparations for the Games, nor on the proposed method of funding them. The only estimate of which we are aware is one which you gave in your statement of February 24 last, according to which the organization of the Games will cost about $124 million, part of this amount to come from statutory grants for housing and education. Since these are areas of federal jurisdiction, I should like to know what your intentions are on this matter.

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
Today is June 28, 1973, more than a year after Mr. Trudeau wrote this letter and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret but I have to interrupt the hon. member to point out that the Standing Orders forbid the use of family names of hon. members and, as the parliamentary secretary knows, hon. members should use the name of the electoral district of their colleagues or their title if they are members of the cabinet.


Pierre De Bané: It is over a year since the government leader wrote to Mr. Drapeau to ask him what his plans were concerning housing, since the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would likely be called upon to finance this project. We are in June and according to the latest information I have, the federal government knows absolutely nothing about the housing program.
In his letter, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
Let me point out that neither the Organization Committee of the Olympic Games of Montreal nor yourself have made available to us detailed estimates and therefore we have been compelled as Federal government, to make our own estimates of revenues and expenditures . . .
And the Prime Minister continues further:
.. . This analysis worries us all, my colleagues and myself, since we have no information for the time being on the financing of the operation.
On January 20, 1973, the Chairman and Commissioner General of the Games, Mr. Roger Rousseau-


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Laval on a point of order.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Matane refers to his concern, he says "my colleagues and myself". I would like to record in Hansard the fact that I wish he would speak on his own behalf and not for his colleagues.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the hon. member for Laval that I am quoting a letter of the Prime Minister and I repeat the quotation:
This analysis worries us all, my colleagues and myself-
It is a letter from Mr. Trudeau-excuse me, Mr. Speaker-from the leader of the government and I quote once again from the correspondence tabled in this House by the leader of the government. Mr. Roger Rousseau, Chairman and Commissioner General of the Olympic Games wrote as follows to the Prime Minister:
Abiding by our undertaking to avoid any taxation at any level whatever, the Mayor of Montreal and I have the honour to inform you of the formula considered.
It is one of the three matters dealt with in the bill before us. And Mr. Rousseau thus carried on:
The studies in progress invariably confirm without any reservation that those three courses of revenuelottery, coins and stamps
-will be sufficient to finance both budgets (organization and facilities)-

As for Mr. Rousseau's comments, I will bring them up again later.
Three days later, the leader of the government wrote to the Mayor of Montreal and I quote:
All things considered, your budget does not seem to balance; you should incur a deficit of $100 or $200 million, excluding any cost increase which could occur by 1976.
To the letter of Mr. Rousseau, a few days earlier, who says: We can balance our budget, the leader of the government answers: According to our federal experts, that is impossible, and he reminds him of the experience with Expo 67, and I quote:
We must also remember that, in the case of the Games which took place elsewhere, the costs where much higher than the initial forecasts, even higher than the evaluations made during the works, without this increase being balanced by a corresponding income increase. And the Prime Minister, in his letter to Mr. Drapeau, states:
That is not the whole problem. The assessment that we have just made of the probable deficit-
Unfortunately, my photostat is not very good; here is the conclusion:
On the basis of the information now available, the federal government-
[ English]


Robert Elgin McKinley: You are not supposed to be reading your speech, anyway.


Pierre De Bané: I am quoting a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the Mayor of Montreal. The letter, dated January 23, reads:
[ Translation]
-the federal government cannot see how the deficit or the services could be financed. Therefore, no responsible and cautious administration would comply with any request made to the federal government concerning financing programs, such as a national lottery or the issue of special Olympic coins or stamps, as the General Commissioner suggested in his letters to me dated November 15 and 17, 1972.
On January 31, 1973, a few days later, the Quebec Premier wrote to the Prime Minister saying that the COJO had assured the provincial government that the deficit feared by the federal government would not materialize, and I quote the letter from the Quebec Premier-


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a very specific bill namely Bill C-196. The hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), who said he was against the bill, is now reading to us all the correspondence that was tabled in the House and which is public knowledge.
In order to give him the opportunity to deliver a speech, we can spare him such a reading the more so because all the members have read it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I believe the Chair should none the less be fair to the hon. member who is trying to explain why he wants or can object to this bill
June 28, 1973

and I do not think that an hon. member in this House should be prevented from substantiating his argument.
The hon. member for Matane.


Pierre De Bané: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Quebec premier wrote to the leader of the Canadian government telling him that COJO had given the provincial government the assurance that it would balance its budget. I should like such assurance to be made public, because an analysis of the federal Treasury Board document that was tabled by the Prime Minister, will show that a deficit of at least $172 million is foreseen. Such is the conclusion of the long study conducted by the Treasury Board and tabled in the House; it reveals that the deficit will be at least $172 million and that the revenue from the Games that will be held for two weeks in Montreal in 1976 and that will cause an expenditure of about $310 million will amount at the most to $18 million.
Mr. Speaker, to govern is to choose, to make choices. The same goes for the government as for individuals and families; our financial resources are limited. The degree of civilization of a given society is judged by the choices it makes, by the priorities it sets. Now, when we look at the problems of the city of Montreal, at those which are now faced by the province of Quebec, an that we find nothing better to do than to ignore the problems of the people to launch forth on a project which the Treasury Board specialists have seen fit to describe as a major financial disaster, while thousands of people live in poverty, because they say we cannot afford to do more and that we are going to undertake a project of this type, I say that a society which defines its priorities in such a way is a sick society. Mr. Speaker, I will quote a few paragraphs from a document published by the Regional Economic Expansion Department, in April 1973, barely two months ago. For example, on page 36, and this is a governmental publication:
-in Montreal, in 1971, more than 24,000 units were without running water-
-24,000 units were without running water in Montreal, compared with only 6,000 in Toronto,-
-and 16,395 units had neither bath nor shower.
I will come back later to this publication of the government on the problems of Montreal. Mr. Speaker, the financial resources of the population-


Marcel-Claude Roy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Laval on a point of order.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Matane is again engaging in politicking at the expense of the Canadian athletes. If we refer to the purpose of the bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-196 provides, and I quote:
-for the issue for circulation in Canada of Olympic commemora-
Olympic Bill
tive coins and for the manufacture and sale of Olympic commemorative stamps and postal related products:
It seems that the hon. member questions the existence of the Olympic Games of 1976 on account of the situation that he finds disastrous in Montreal. It seems to me that he should keep to the subject matter of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The point of order raised by the hon. member is valid in that the hon. member is trying to bring this debate to the subject now before us and which is a legislation aiming at making available to the City of Montreal some means of financing the Olympic Games.
Earlier, on a similar point of order by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), the Chair wanted to give the hon. member for Matane the required freedom in order that he might complete his comments regarding his decision not to support the bill, but a second point of order would perhaps be for me an opportunity to invite the hon. member for Matane to try and stick closely to the bill now before the House. I think indeed that he may use this debate to consider this whole matter of social security and the needs of the Canadian people. Like me, he knows that the decision concerning the organization of the Olympic Games is neither that of this House nor the government. The legislation now before us aims specifically at providing means of financing, and the hon. member should, as soon as possible, get back to the subject of this debate on means of financing which are offered to the Olympic Games Organization without in any way restricting his argument to this sole consideration. Nevertheless, I think that by tackling the whole problem of social security and the needs of the people, he is straying too far from the object of the bill now before the House.
[ English]


Mr. Harney:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a member of this House listening to the debate now going on, I must say that we speak in this House not only for the sake of hearing ourselves talk but also in the hope that other members are listening to what we say. Surely the point of debate is to attempt to convince others that our point of view should carry. Certainly, I found the proposals, statements and details in the presentation of the hon. member for Matane edifying.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. First of all, the Chair has already rendered a decision on the point of order. It was more an invitation than a restriction and invited the hon. member to try to confine his remarks to the bill in front of the House at the present time. The Chair does not intend to prevent any hon. member from giving reasons why he wishes to oppose or to vote for the bill. But to allow a member to bring into the debate the whole question of social security in Canada, and expand on it by giving statistics as to the needs of the population, or to allow a member to refer, say, to the national defence budget and to say money is spent also in that field, is going a little too far.
As I said, the Chair does not wish to prevent anyone from expressing an opinion on whether he supports a piece of legislation or does not, but the Chair does have some responsibility for the operation of the House and for

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
reaching decisions. The only way to do this is to give on occasion as little direction as is possible to hon. members in order that we may come to that position.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, let this be clearly understood. If 60 per cent of the incomes of Montrealers were not below $4,000 and if, as I will quote the figures later on, the federal government itself had not stated that the city of Montreal as a financial, manufacturing and commercial centre, was going to pot, I would certainly be in favour of the Olympic Games. But, as I said earlier, to govern is to choose and after I have described the problems facing the city of Montreal, you will see why I find unreasonable the priority given to the Games which are going to cost half a billion dollars.
This is enough! If it is a shame to mention the true problems faced by Montreal in this House, I really wonder whether the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) believes in democracy.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am speaking as a member for the metropolitan area. When the hon. member for Matane suggested that Montreal is going to pot, I think he went too far.


Pierre De Bané: The hon. member is right, I went too far, but anyway I think-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Perhaps it is time for the Chair to bring some order into this debate. The hon. members in their speeches should deal with the purposes of the legislation, and the bill before us is certainly not intended to replace the Montreal authorities who decided to organize the Olympic Games.
The bill before us is aimed at finding ways of financing the city of Montreal and on this point it is understandable that hon. members should disagree. However, I think this is not the proper time to debate this economical and social question, especially the situations to be found elsewhere in Canada as in Montreal.
Now I would ask hon. members' co-operation so that they abstain as much as possible from making points of order and try to stick to the discussion now going on and dealing with ways to finance the organization of the Olympic Games of Montreal.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I will spell out the real scope of the legislation now before us and quote the findings of the financial analyses tabled by the government. The estimated revenue amounts to $160 million, 100 million of which will come from the sale of coins, $32 million from lotteries, $10 million from stamps, for a total of $142 million.
Without the bill which is now before us, the Olympic Games cannot take place. And this is, in my view, Mr. Speaker, the reason why I try to explain that would there not be more urging needs in Montreal than this event which will last two weeks and cost $500 million, things would be quite different. I always try, like everybody else, but I say to myself that everyone of us must make a choice every day as what seems most urging among the thousand
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
requests which are made to us. And I think that a society which is unable to settle more satisfactorily the problem of its poor because of a lack of financial means, but which is able to find out half a billion dollars for the implementation of a two-week program is sick, unable to make choices which are, I suggest, essential.
Let us say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about the problems of the city of Montreal on which the whole prosperity of the province of Quebec rests because it is the cornerstone.
The Montreal Urban Community has just tabled a draft of a development project and we can see that there is no sewage treatment plant in the Montreal area. Nobody is able to swim in the waters that surround Montreal and yet, Montreal is supposed to be an island. Of course, water and air pollution problems have become very serious. A few neighbourhoods of the city of Montreal are in real decay and they say that there is no money available to save them.
I stated earlier that over 60 per cent of the people had an annual income of less than $4,000; to a tragic extent, Montreal is lacking in green spaces and without this bill, once more, the Olympic Games cannot take place; it is thanks to this bill that they will get more than 90 per cent of the revenue. According to the proposals of the MUC regional planning and development service, as stated in the project recently tabled in the MUC, green spaces would cost, according to experts, about $200 million.
Moreover the Hanigan report is extremely pessimistic concerning the sharp rise in expenses in the urban community while revenues are stable and Montreal vacant lot rate is now 20 per cent. Actually to revitalize the centre of the city, which empties every night, and where people come back in the morning, which results in colossal traffic jams, that would imply a huge endeavour. Pedestrian promenades, sheltered sectors should be prepared, trees should be planted, land banks created, which alone would cost $300 million. That would enable us of course to administer Montreal a lot more cheaply.
Those are some of the problems facing the city of Montreal. And still, one will approve this afternoon a gigantic project, described a while ago by the hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), while, as recently as last winter, the Mayor of Montreal closed the children's skating rinks because the city of Montreal did not have the money to maintain them. And we are being told that something will be done to improve sporting activities.
The Montreal urban community transportation commission has just indicated an unprecedented deficit of $9 million, and that does not stop pollution to be more serious than ever in the centre of the city. The urban community police service will cost more than $100 million this year, and that does not stop the president of the union from saying that a walkout as tragic as the one which happened in October, 1969 could occur again soon. The city has no money to hire more experts for the Fire Prevention Department, following the Blue Bird tragedy which took the lives of 27 people and that on Park Avenue where at least six older people died. The city has no money to get rid of sheds which are public hazards. The city has not yet paid for creating Notre Dame Island at a cost of $30 million and sets upon destroying 9,000 acres of it for sports. Montreal now has over 100,000 lodgings which, for
June 28, 1973

lack of immediate repairs, may soon become slums and permanently irreparable, etc.
These projects are considerably more urgent, but the three levels of government and notably Montreal have no money for them. These problems which I have just described are not included in the priorities of the City of Montreal. Has there ever been a case of a special effort such as the one we are making for the Olympic Games which will last only two weeks?
Mr. Speaker, when we see this situation and ask ourselves how we are going to spend our funds, I say that we are choosing unacceptable priorities, considering the problems facing the city of Montreal.
I think it would be appropriate now for me to quote one or two paragraphs from the study published by the Regional Economic Expansion Department in April 1973 and which is called:

Economic situation and development possibilities.
Recent trends related to population, industry, transport, finance and a certain number of other sectors indicate that the role of Montreal as a springboard for the economic development of Quebec has decreased.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that the population of Montreal learn the truth. It is not a policy of hiding our heads in the sand which will help us solve these problems. All these studies of the federal government show that the situation, as the hon. member from Laval was saying-I have no doubt exaggerated the situation, but it is nevertheless not optimistic-can be illustrated by another excerpt from page 99 of that study:
Up till the early 50's, Montreal had established itself as the major financial centre in Canada. During the last two decades however, there has been a relative transfer of financial activity from Montreal to Toronto, and this latter town has become the true nervous centre of financial activity in Canada.
Then follow several statistics:
Stock exchange activity in 1971.
Stock exchange transactions are three times higher in Toronto than in Montreal. In addition, there is much less activity on the money market there than in Toronto.
During the last 15 years or so, a certain number of financial institutions have transferred their headquarters to Toronto. There has been, among others, the transfer of the headquarters of 6 of the 18 life insurance companies established in Montreal and of 34 out of the 112 insurance companies other than life insurance companies.
In my opinion, the people of Montreal must be made aware of these problems, and they must be asked whether it is more important to hold Olympic Games which will last for two weeks or to renovate the 100,000 homes in Montreal which will soon be beyond repair?
Mr. Speaker, to the question" Are you in favour of holding Olympic Games in Newfoundland for example? My answer is, of course, I am for holding the Olympic Games anywhere in the world, but when we consider other needs, the conclusion might be a different one. Of course, I would like to have a Cadillac, but if I don't have
Olympic Bill
the money to pay my rent, is my ambition normal? Is dealing with the Olympic Games in this way a good way to govern and to comply with the wishes of the people?
I would now like to speak briefly about the Olympic Games themselves. Exactly what are the benefits they will bring? It will not be like Expo '67 which gave Montreal infrastructures that still remain: the metro, the East-West Expressway, things that develop independently of the Olympic Games. And whether or not the Games are held, the low rental housing programs, for example, will go on. And here I must digress momentarily to say that until now Montreal has never spent all the funds allocated to it every year for low rental housing. Neither has the province of Quebec spent all the CMHC funds allocated for the same purpose.
As far as the Montreal infrastructures are concerned, all projects are being carried out regardless of the Olympic Games, whether it is the metro, dwellings or the East-West expressway. Therefore, what will remain? A 50,000-seat stadium in addition to those already existing in Montreal. And this stadium, according to all the experts, will clearly not be used fully after the Olympic Games. Obviously, it will be impossible to fill every day a 80,000-seat stadium according to the application file in Montreal. As for the shooting range, how many Montrealers will make use of it? At the present time, the greater part of Notre-Dame Island is being destroyed to build a canal for canoe and kayak events, a sport that is not very popular in Canada. Yet, for the sake of two weeks, they will destroy an island that cost $30 million to the city of Montreal to develop and is not yet fully paid!
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the great disadvantage of the Olympics is that for two years, and until 1976, they will require all the energies of the mayor of Montreal and of all civic officials, when there is every indication economically that there are much more urgent problems, some of which I referred to earlier.
Let us consider what happened in Munich. There were 400 permanent employees and at the end, there were 15,000 temporary employees, excluding the 30,000 soldiers, but this did not prevent the tragedy we all know about. For the Kiel water sports only, there were 60 ships. Likewise, the part of the Games that will take place in Kingston will cost $5 million. This is very sensible.
Why will Canadians pay directly or indirectly, as the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Boisvert) said earlier, whether it be through lotteries or otherwise, because the money always comes from the same pockets. Why will we have to spend so much money? To whom is the International Olympic Committee answerable? Who is responsible for the decisions it is making? Do the people know that on each ticket that will be sold in the stadium or for other activities in the cycle racing track, the International Olympic Committee will collect a royalty or a vested interest? Is it known that on the television rights, the city of Montreal will get $3 million and the International Committee $9 million?
So there is a vested interest in the gigantic International Committee and here is a group of citizens who is going to impose such a gigantism to our country. For we must not forget that only rich countries can take part in the Olympics. When the federal government says that the deficit for

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
the XXlst Olympic Games will amount to at least $172 million, it shows, Mr. Speaker, that these games will be anything but sports, and surely no sports for the whole world, while millions of persons are literally starving. And they need not try to tell us that having a stadium is a generating activity. No industry will want to set up in Montreal even though there already are ten stadia and another one holding 80,000 people being built.
Then, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Revenue for the Province of Quebec, the hon. Harvey says that there could be a deficit, at that time the people of Quebec will have to pay for it through taxation. Let us consider that I represent an area where the annual per capita income is below $1,000, and that the per capita income in this country is only $4,400. In many areas, people ask for legitimate things, as the right to work with dignity and they are told: "We do not have any money; be patient and we will find $500 million for the Olympic Games in Montreal. I for one, will tell Mr. Drapeau: No, it is out of the question!"
Let us consider now the proposed Olympic village. I think it is one of the saddest and most eloquent example of the way the mayor of Montreal has proceeded. Only two weeks before the general commissioner leaves for Lau-zanne, we hear about the site of the Olympic Games. I asked all the federal experts who worked on the subject whether they knew about the site. None of them knew about it. They did not know where the Olympic village would be located. And if we look into the document relating to the bid of the City of Montreal which was tabled here, we note that reference was made to several Olympic villages.
In any case, the experts tell us that before deciding on a site, and to consider its fair value it takes six months. Making it known hardly a few days before the last date, I suggest is not a democratic procedure. In fact, we are told that this site had been known for several years. Mr. Speaker, I was told by federal civil servants that they implored Mr. Drapeau, hardly 3 months ago, to tell them where the Olympic Village would be built and they were told: "You will know it in due course". Now, he wants to build an Olympic Village in Viau Park. There is no one I know with the Federal government who knows what kind of Olympic Village he wants to build and how much money Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is going to put into this project. At all events, I have been assured that because of the delays, it will be absolutely impossible, according to all the Federal experts I consulted to be on time because the plans are not ready and they have not yet been submitted to the government. It will be a disaster from the point of view of urban environment.
It would be extremely easy to imagine an Olympic Village in Montreal, which would be the starting point of urban renewal in the East end of the city. Three or four other sites have been suggested, but it would take several months to consider them. Nobody was kept informed. The Group for the preservation of green spaces tabled statistics on the number of acres of green spaces which have been eliminated in Montreal in recent years; more than
9,000	trees will be cut down on the Notre-Dame Island. Preparations are under way to sacrifice 5,000 trees in Viau Park. The Chairman of the Executive Council of Montreal,

who is also the Chairman of the Urban Community of Montreal, Mr. Hanigan, has said, and I quote from the newspaper Montreal Matin of Thursday May 17, 1973:
The Urban Community of Montreal is against the choice of a section of the Viau Municipal Golf for the building of the Olympic Village.
Over 70 per cent of the population have voted against this choice; over 70,000 persons have signed a petition, and I read in La Presse of May 17, 1973 with reference to Mr. Goldbloom-



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-177, an act to amend the Judges Act-Chapter No. 17.
Bill C-133, an act to amend the National Housing Act-Chapter No. 18.
Bill C-202, an Act to amend the Pension Act-Chapter No. 19.
Bill C-204, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1974-Chapter No. 16.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at eight o'clock consideration of the bill now before it.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Pursuant to special order made earlier this date, the House will now revert to motions. The hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).
June 28, 1973


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on motions and then at the end of it, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), lay on the table of the House two documents, "An Energy Policy for Canada, Phase I." volume I is an analysis, and Volume II is appendices. These are in relation to a review of energy policies in Canada. This is a comprehensive review of the five principal commodities which are used to create energy in Canada. I think I am correct in saying that this is the first time there has been an attempt to consider all five commodities in one study as a prelude for policy decisions.
The document is lengthy and speaks for itself. The appropriate statement to be made at this time on motions is really, I think, what will be the procedure and where will we go in terms of further discussions on policy? Clearly, in relation to many of the policies action will have to be taken by way of consultation with the provincial governments, many of which have under our constitution legislative jurisdiction with regard to parts of these policies. We also feel that it should be possible and appropriate to take action by way of consulting interested members of the general public on a question which in recent years has been one of the most lively to be discussed in political affairs in Canada.
There are a number of questions which will require provincial consultation. One concerns the discussions that have been taking place recently with regard to the price of natural gas in Canada. I think it might be helpful to look at this as not just a simple discussion of the gas price but also a discussion with regard to the oil market, the continuation or change of the national oil policy, to discuss the question of economic rent which is referred to at some length in these documents, and also what, if any, kind of incentives should be made available to the petroleum industry in Canada to make certain that the potential that we have in the frontier areas with regard to oil and natural gas will in fact be defined by exploration and ultimately be made available by way of transportation systems.
In the discussions between the federal government and the provinces there are conflicting interests. Natural gas is the most obvious case, where the producer province has an ambition to get the best possible price for the product, and consumer provinces are concerned about what for their consumers and industries will be an increase in the cost of energy. This is the kind of question, therefore, that cannot be settled in any other way than by close consultation and discussion between federal and provincial governments and it will be a priority for future action.
I am expecting, in effect, to consult provincial governments across the country but particularly those in western Canada which are very much concerned about this question. The governments of Ontario and Quebec are also actively concerned in natural gas questions. There will be discussions with all governments on these various energy issues to let them put their viewpoints forward with regard to the studies. Also, we do not pretend that these are not questions of opinion upon which reasonable men could differ. The important thing is to try to get the broadest possible input of fact and opinion as to what
Energy
energy resources we have, what our needs are, and then to evolve policy changes.
Visits to various provincial capitals will be for the purpose of getting their first reactions and, secondly, to consult with the provincial governments as to the manner in which they would like to continue discussions, whether in talks at a federal-provincial conference, as suggested by Premier Davis, or in specific discussions with regard to individual commodities.
To indicate the area for action by this government and this parliament, I shall be seeking from my colleagues the opportunity to give early precedence in the next session of parliament to putting through a bill which we have been discussing for a number of years with regard to a uranium policy for Canada. Equally, it would be helpful-and I will be consulting the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) on this-to have the subject matter of these documents made the subject of a specific reference to the standing committee of the House of Commons. There has been useful discussion on the annual report of the department, but it seems to me this document might provide a broader basis for discussion and I think we should have a further discussion in committee. Of course, the committee would be at liberty to call interested persons and to comment further on it.
When talking about energy policies in Canada we are really talking not so much about a single philosopher's stone that is going to solve all questions but, rather, an aggregate of policies. This is not only with regard to the five commodities but policies with regard to evolving needs within our country. There is, therefore, going to be a problem from time to time in bringing into effect some parts of the policy when other parts are not decided. In effect, we shall try to deal with it in terms of the order of priorities not only as time may present the problems but as co-operative decisions can be reached with respect to various aspects of these documents.
Without further ado, Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table copies, in both official languages, of "An Energy Policy for Canada, Phase I" in two volumes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me tell the minister that the report being tabled tonight falls far short of our expectations and of the expectations of the people of Canada. As a collection of data and as a research analysis, this report appears at first-hand to have identified most of the energy issues confronting the Canadian nation. The questions are raised. But where are the answers? After all, policy proposals are solutions to questions. This House and the country had every right and reason, based on the minister's statements both inside and outside this House, to expect that instead of once more raising questions and issues, leadership and direction would have been forthcoming.
It is difficult, therefore, to understand why the minister has undertaken what appears to be an overzealous public relations campaign through which to transmit the findings of his report. In a way, the minister is really only trying to
5176

June 28, 1973
Energy
make up for the many years during which his government has not seen fit to present to this House and the country a relevant policy on one of our most important industries.
One central theme emerges from this report. The government has once again backed away from formulating a coherent national energy policy. The title of the report is misleading. The title of the information program is misleading. This is not a policy; it is not a policy program; it is not a policy recommendation. It is a non-policy. Despite repeated comments by the minister not only in this parliament but also last year that a policy statement would be forthcoming, what he has tabled here tonight is a non-policy. But perhaps the minister is not solely to blame for this. If recent reports are correct, then no doubt what appears before us tonight is in fact a watered-down version of the original study the minister placed before the cabinet for approval. The people of Canada may never know what happened in cabinet. What we do know is that the people of this country are still waiting for a national energy policy.
I hope Canadians will participate in the debate which will be triggered by the documents tabled tonight. If my early conclusions based on a review of this report are correct, then the people of Canada should beware: the government is either unable on unwilling to come to grips with the major energy issues confronting Canada today. Time will not stand still while the government hesitates and vacillates. Time marches on, and these problems remain with us. This report, while ambitious in scope, containing as it does projections to the year 2050, has merely restated the major energy issues facing this country; it has not provided answers for them. Some of these issues are so pressing that answers are urgently needed.
Is the interval between tonight and the time when a national energy policy finally appears to be characterized by more ad hoc government decisions? How many more sudden export controls will the government impose until it has made up its mind to bring forth a comprehensive national policy statement? Is the government satisfied that eastern Canada may not again be threatened with shortage of supply? What is the government's policy with respect to the pricing of energy supplies both domestically and abroad? What about the Mackenzie valley pipeline project? What will the government do if an upheaval in the Middle East jeopardizes energy imports to our eastern provinces? Do two of our strongest provinces have to engage in a useless constitutional dispute before our Supreme Court because the federal government has failed to show leadership?
These are some of the energy problems the country faces today, these are some of the energy problems that demand answers now, and these are the problems that the government has chosen to ignore. We must have answers, and the country must have leadership.
In closing my remarks let me say that if the government is not ready to enunciate a national energy policy, parliament will find a policy for them. We in the Progressive Conservative Party therefore call on the minister to convene an all-party, special committee of the House which is assigned the task of formulating specific energy policy proposals without delay.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why are you so embarrassed, Donald?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada who are concerned about the energy problems facing this country now and which have faced it for some years will be disappointed, as I know my colleagues are disappointed, with the minister's statement and the document he has filed tonight.
For four years we were told that the government was formulating a national energy policy. As far back as January 10, on January 16 and on several occasions since then I asked the minister when he was going to bring down a statement on national energy policy; not a study but a statement on national energy policy. The minister constantly gave receding dates. During the cabinet meeting on or about April 10 it was decided that the phase one analysis needed auditing prior to publication and that it should be sent back to the minister in order to portray a more neutral stand on major issues. The cabinet decided, since about April 10, to postpone phase two, the goals and objectives that would set forth the definite policy, and the minister stopped talking about a national energy statement and began talking about studies.
There is no harm in studies. We all agree that you must gather all the data you can before you make decisions. But you cannot go on forever collecting data. The problems that we face in this country will not wait for endless studies and endless analyses. These problems are upon us now. The government has been telling us for a long time that it is willing to come up with solutions.
The document which the minister tabled raises a host of pertinent questions. It does not suggest any solutions. The cabinet, apparently, on April 10 decided it would not handle the hot potato of setting forth solutions until next year or later, so we are to wait for one year. In the meantime, its failure to make decisions, or its ad hoc decisions, could lock this country into a situation in which the kinds of solutions that ought to be made will no longer be possible. As the queen said in "Alice in Wonderland", this is the kind of world in which you have to run as fast as you can to stay where you are. We cannot wait while the minister does endless studies before dealing with some of these problems, and the document the minister has tabled does not give us any answers about the energy problems which face this country.
The minister and his officials have given us a very competent compendium of data, which I think we already have heard before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. Mr. Speaker, one does not need to have further studies to realize from the analysis which the minister has tabled that two simple and irrefutable facts are apparent. First, this country is running short of cheap and readily accessible fossil fuels. We have between 12 and 14 years of cheap oil available, and 25 years of cheap natural gas. Second, when we develop oil from the tar sands and secure natural gas from the Arctic, the cost will double or triple. Surely the government does not have to wait and gather studies to realize the economic insanity of allowing readily accessible, cheap fossil fuels to go at low prices; and it must face the fact that in 10 or 15 years we will pay two or three times the present price for these commodities.
Canada suffers from many disadvantages as a great industrial power. We pay more in transportation costs
June 28, 1973

because of our vast distances and our distance from world markets. However, we are one of the few countries of the world with the advantage of reasonable amounts of energy, and if prices are not allowed to escalate this energy will give our industries a competitive advantage in world markets. What are we doing with this energy? There is no indication that the government intends to change its policy. As a matter of fact, there are some things in the report which indicate that the government intends to continue its policy-


An hon. Member:: What policy?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -of exporting over 50 per cent of our gas and oil. Thus, we face the prospect that by 1985 or sooner we will be turning to other sources of energy which will be much more expensive, and any competitive advantage we have had will disappear.
I suggest that this analysis already sets the stage for phase two and for the goals and guidelines which the government proposes to bring down. Implicit in this analysis upon which we were briefed this afternoon is, first of all, the assumption that the Mackenzie valley pipeline will be proceeded with.


An hon. Member:: Possibly two.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Possibly two, but certainly a gas pipeline down the Mackenzie. The Arctic Studies Company Limited made it clear that in the initial stages there will be no Canadian gas for Canadians and that after an interval only 5 per cent of the throughput will be for Canada; the rest will be exported. The second assumption is that we will continue to export oil at the same rate as we import it. Our imports will certainly increase by at least 4 per cent per year, so our exports will increase by 4 per cent per year. The third assumption is that domestic prices for oil and gas will be allowed to follow the international prices. There is no reason why the Canadian people should have to pay more for their gas and oil merely because other countries are prepared to allow their prices to rise.
It seems that the government has already set the stage for business as usual, follow the old course, continue to export oil and gas, continue to allow our prices to go up, and continue to sell cheap, accessible fossil fuels knowing full well that in a matter of a decade or a decade and a half we will be paying very high prices for these commodities.
It is a sad day for this country when we get the kind of document we have today in return for a demand by the Canadian people for a national energy policy. This is not a national energy policy: this is a decision by the government to put off having to make very difficult decisions. The government will have to make those decisions. Unfortunately, if it procrastinates and dawdles long enough, the decisions will inevitably be the wrong decisions in terms of the welfare of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Energy


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just tabled a report, or rather the conclusions of a study on the energy possibilities of our country.
We are, of course, very pleased to be able to read the work of the technocrats,, and I am well aware that since this government has been in power it has given us quite a lot of reading to do through the reports of the many commissions it has appointed. It would seem that as soon as the government comes up against a slightly thorny problem, it hurries into creating a commission to look into it, into asking technocrats to perform this or that job, to such an extent that since this government has been in power, I believe the number of technocrats has tripled. Whenever we have to discuss a problem, be that of energy or any other, we are stuck with technocrats.
Today, I witnessed a perfect example of the present strangle-hold technocracy has on us. Next week, I shall have to face technocrats, and I cannot get out of it; provincial and federal technocrats will have to meet because they are the ones who will decide what the government must do.
I admit that I began reading those reports and I will take the time to read the one that was just tabled, like all the others ones. I listened with interest to the minister, who besides is always well-intentioned, with his group of technocrats. To prepare himself for the opening of the next session, he promised that next month he would meet all provincial governments to discuss the possibility of establishing at last, in agreement with the provinces, an energy policy for Canada.
I believe it is going to take another year, first to devise an energy policy, if the technocrats are willing to show the department how to give Canada such a policy that will enable its economy to operate at the other countries' level.
And I realize that with all those studies we are still 10 or 15 years behind other countries. We do nothing but copy other countries, especially the United States and we are always behind them. And I can imagine, although I did not yet read the reports, that another belated policy is going to prevail and I always hope that some day the minister-I am not questioning his capacity, although I question that of certain other ministers-at the opening of the next session will at least give us a policy that will be to the advantage of Canada, of consumers, of producers and exporters.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The House having completed motions will now proceed to the consideration of orders of the day, namely government order No. 49.
26446-37J

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the hon. Mr. Drury that Bill C-196, respecting the 1976 summer Olympic games, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned at six o'clock I was trying to deal with some aspects of the organization of the 1976 Olympic games in Montreal, the XXI Olympiad and I tried to demonstrate that taking into account the seriousness of the problems faced by the city of Montreal, in view of certain projects which should be urgently undertaken in Montreal if we want to improve the quality of life there, we should choose better priorities because, as I said before supper, to govern is to choose. Taking into account our financial resources, the people's needs are much more serious and each day governments have choices to make. In view of the problems faced by Montreal, which I tried to describe roughly on the basis of government documents, I said that other projects are more urgently needed by this city.
The other issue which I tried to explain is that the mayor of Montreal is implementing those games in a most antidemocratic fashion. I have quoted the letter sent by the Prime Minister of Canada to Mr. Drapeau on January 23, which stated-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise the House that his time is expired and that he must obtain the House consent to proceed with his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Pierre De Bané: I am grateful to my hon. colleagues for their forbearance and I shall strive to be brief.
In a letter dated August 15, 1972, addressed to Mr. Drapeau, the Prime Minister was saying, and I quote:
In spite of the reiterated requests of federal officials, I think we have yet to receive precise information as to the progress of the Games-
In the light of the information presently available, the federal government does not see how the deficit or services could be financed. Therefore, it would be unworthy of responsible and well-advised administrators to grant requests made to the federal government in connection with financing programs such as national lotteries or the issue of special coins or stamps-
And only recently, federal officials and members of the COJO asked Mr. Drapeau where the Olympic village would be located and what its design would be and he answered them: You will know in due course. He took the decision without our being able to consider other possibilities because after all, a few months at least are required to examine alternatives and now, how is he going to develop the site he has arbitrarily chosen? Nobody in the federal government knows, but we do know that today, consider-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]
ing the necessary delays, it is a certainty, according to all the experts I have consulted, that while that Olympic village project should have provided the opportunity for a new start for a whole section of Montreal, it is going to be most banal from the design and development standpoints.
And according ro my information, not more than 5 per cent of the dwellings built there will be low cost units.
At any rate, the two levels of government have not yet been formally presented with that project.
Mr. Speaker, when one examines the needs of the city of Montreal that I have tried to enumerate, when I note that governments answer that they do not have any money to cope with that situation, and that the mayor of Montreal wants to draw us into that adventure, I say that this is totally unacceptable choice or priority.
If the government would introduce a people oriented bill designed to give the City of Montreal $300 million, which would bring new vigour and consolidation to downtown Montreal, and settle really urgent problems because the City is the corner-stone of the economic life of the province of Quebec, I would surely support such a bill. But such a project which will last two weeks will result, like "Expo 67", in a micro-inflation. And yet, we went ahead with Expo 67 under the pretence that it would at least create some economic substructure in Montreal, while this will not be the case with the Olympic Games.
Mr. Speaker, those are arguments which explain why, in my humble opinion, the Montreal Olympic Games project should be abandoned.
We have the example of our colleagues in Washington; the United States government had sunk hundreds of millions of dollars in the supersonic plane project and, at one time, the Congress said no because there were much more important priorities in the United States.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that all my colleagues in this House will stop the Olympic Games project and that we will prove to the people of Canada that the first priorities for us, are those of disadvantaged groups, of long-term programs which can really solve the urban problems that are plaguing our big cities: Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. In this way, Mr. Speaker, we will act in the interest of the people because within four years when the Treasury Board forecast proves to be correct and have a deficit of $172 million, the people will not forgive us for having given the green light to this project.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner).


Marcel-Claude Roy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order! Does the hon. member wish to raise a point of order or ask a question-


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order.
My colleague is asking the House to give up the Olympic Games project and I want to say that 1 do not think that the stuly now being made on Bill C-196 will result in
June 28, 1973

either dropping or going ahead with the Olympic Games project.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I would like-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order! It is difficult to accept the point of order raised by the hon. member for Laval. First, I do not consider it a point of order, but rather a very serious argument leading to a debate. I therefore cannot authorize the hon. member to reply to a point of order which is not one.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe is being recognized.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, as a member of parliament and as a Quebecer, I must say I am proud of this bill. I must say that I am also very happy to have heard, this afternoon, on behalf of our party, the member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) express with conviction the attitude of our party leader (Mr. Stanfield) and that of the party itself with regard to this bill. We agree with the principle of this bill. We realize what challenge the 1976 Olympic Games represent. We have faith in our Canadian compatriots, we have faith in this Canadian and international initiative; therefore, it is with pride that we will vote for the motion for second reading.
Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, we heard the end of the speech of the hon. member for Matane, parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He started his speech in Shakespeare's language with these words which were indeed spoken very elegantly, and I quote:
J'ai l'intention de voter contre le bill a l'etude.
Mr. Speaker, I would have expected from a Quebec member, from a parliamentary secretary who is an expert in international affairs, a great deal more open-mindedness, generosity and sensitivity, less limited outlooks, and still we have had to suffer during those 40 minutes and sympathize with the president of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and I think with all hon. members, except maybe the members of the New Democratic Party who have their own reasons to oppose this bill.
Their reason is indeed their very own as one member says, since it is the only bill they can oppose without fear of overthrowing the government.
I would have expected, Mr. Speaker, that a parliamentary secretary would not have shown such defeatism, such pessimism, that he would take advantage of this rostrum to attack Mayor Drapeau and the city of Montreal. That goes to show that he can be very brave. Whenever one attacks an absent opponent one is supposed to be brave. But I think that the mayor of Montreal will know how to reply to him; the mayor of Montreal can put back certain facts which were taken out of context and answer back those who do not share his views for lack of knowledge of the facts.
Recently, the mayor of Montreal had the opportunity to give a spirited reply to a minister of the provincial cabinet. I suppose he will be able to answer back someone who is anxiously waiting at the cabinet doorstep.
Olympic Bill
Mr. Speaker, I say this very sincerely: never had a member of this House expressed such a death wish and never has a Quebec member done so much in such a short time-a little more than forty minutes-to sell short the province of Quebec, the metropolis and the whole country while we-when I say "we" I mean many members-we like to make people throughout Canada understand Quebec and its objectives, so that a truly Canadian unity can be achieved from sea to sea. I say that it is with a heavy heart that I had to bear with such a plea by the hon. member for Matane whom the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) had already described in some writing in 1971, but I shall refrain from recalling it at this time.
Mr. Speaker, there are unfortunately people who are spineless in the face of challenges that normally bring out enthusiasm on the part of real men. Sadly enough there are still people who use the cause of the most underprivileged among us with a demagogy that is unworthy of the image they create about themselves at a certain time. Such behaviour in this House, Mr. Chairman is not an "Operation-self respect" for the Canadian people. To sterile dissenters, wherever they may be, to dissenters retired into their shell, to professional dissenters, personally I prefer builders.
I prefer those who devote their energy to build rather than those who protest permanently. I do not think that as Canadians and Quebecers we should have any inferiority complex.
Somewhat like his Excellency Roger Rousseau, the General Commissioner to the 1976 Olympic games, and because I am interested in anything international, it is this aspect of the Olympiad which first retained my attention, this international aspect which unfortunately escaped the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Olympic spirit whose purposes were redefined by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, is at the root of mankind, without any distinction of race, colour, economic or political status. A few years back we have seen a modest Ethiopian, Abebe Bekila, move the whole world by his impressive victories in the 26 mile marathon which he covered on his bare feet.
Many of us recall how, in Munich, the athletes of both Germanies warmly shook hands. Thanks to the Olympic spirit, many men and women scattered throughout the world will compete and fully live the mens sana in corpore sano maxim during the next three years.
Moreover, for three years the rest of the world will have their eyes on Canada. It was a proud moment for Canadians when at the end of the Munich games the next appointment was "Montreal in 1976!"
The Olympic spirit is involving the whole humanity even more than the world exhibitions mostly devoted to culture. I believe in sports per se and in the Olympic spirit mainly as a unifying factor. His Excellency Roger Rousseau, former ambassador of Canada in Cameroos could tell us that he saw with his own eyes in Africa, in those new countries with inherited borders, how sports contributed to create a unity which was felt impossible to achieve among tribal populations.

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
The 1976 Olympic Games will be a success if all Canadians participate. Although they will be held in Montreal, they should interest all Canadians. In fact, as editor Roger Lemelin put it, all of us, especially our youth are much more in need of the athletes' outstanding examples of good citizenship discipline and fair competition that we are of military service as such and the expensive welfare patchwork. Our whole nation, which is in poor condition, physically if not mentally, need the spur of the 1976 Olympic Games.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to put on record that the 1976 Olympic Games in Canada are above all a nationwide responsibility.
Let all Canadians know that it is thanks to the federal government's representations that Montreal was granted by the International Olympic Committee the privilege- for it is indeed a privilege-to organize the 1976 Olympic Games. Let everyone realize that it was Canada's commitment and that Montreal, for a number of reasons, is the agent of our country, in all initiatives related to the Games. Montreal's bid was officially endorsed by the federal government in Rome in 1966, and later in Amsterdam in 1970. It is necessary that these things be said and repeated for all Canadians to hear.
I know that some are frightened by the cost of the Games. Many Canadians still remember the deficit of Expo 67. They should have been invited to inquire into the actual profit of the event: salaries, income tax, direct and indirect taxes, tourism and what not!
This time, with the Olympic Games, it seems obvious, according to COJO officials themselves, that they are determined to decide in favour of a maximum use of existing resources and to stop the increase in costs, for two reasons. First of all, in order not to impose an unnecessary burden upon taxpayers, but most of all because they want to show to the world that from our experience, the games will prove to be financially accessible to developing countries, whether it be Africa or Latin America. Let COJO officials always keep this in mind; this, Mr. Speaker, is the most human and positive dimension of the challenge we will have to face in 1976. Therefore, let us try to be simple and not to dazzle.
From the point of view of Canada, because this matter concerns the whole country and not only Quebec or Montreal, we must ensure that once the games are over our country becomes a land of sports, a land of physical conditioning. The Olympic spirit, the 1976 games, must be the start for public participation. The star athlete and medals are nothing but flashy stuff and short range. The 1976 Games will have been really successful, as far as Canadians are concerned, if the latter enter the game themselves and if, from now on, many more of them practice at least one sport. In view of the huge benefits which will derive from the games, Canada is truly able to finance a project designed to make such proof.
If Montreal undertook to financing the Games under existing programs, Ottawa, through the present government, engaged, unhappily, in dilatory measures. It also engaged, unhappily, in contradictions.

My colleague from High Park-Humber Valley, who is himself an athlete of whom our country was and is still right fully proud, largely proved the weaknesses and inconsistancies of the government in this whole matter of financing the 1976 Games.
At one time, one would have thought that the federal government, in 1965, 1970 and 1973, would have said; Make Canada more amazing at the expense of Montreal and of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the Quebecers and the Montrealers must do their part, and this is what they are doing, but nothing more, because as far as I know, Montreal and Quebec are still part of Canada.
If we had to start all over again, since 1969, the federal government should have been more involved in an undertaking primarily Canadian and it should have voluntarily agreed to contribute directly to the financing of the Games.
Today, when all directly concerned, Montreal, the COJO, Quebec and Ottawa, have agreed on a self-funding system for the Games, and apparently with enough confidence, let us not create new or false problems.
However, let us make sure that Bill C-196 now before us is the guarantee of the profitable issue of Olympic coins and postage stamps and the efficient organization of a nationwide lottery. It was with this in mind that my colleague for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) made some reservations, raised some questions and made some suggestions which I hope will be discussed in committee.
And as far as we, of the Official Opposition, are con cerned, we are anxious to endorse the principle of this bill and to refer it to a committee so that the improvements proposed in this House by my colleague will be made without delay.
Having said that, we should have no illusions on this point. Through this bill, the federal government is not making any gifts to Quebec or Montreal. Rather, it is only assuming-a little late and almost timidly-the responsibilities it had assumed as soon as the International Olympic committee awarded the 1976 Games to Montreal.
The government of Canada must now, logically and in full awareness of its leadership role in this matter, with the support of the opposition parties, make available to COJO all existing federal services likely to promote the holding and the success of the 1976 Games, and above all, inform the Canadian public of the challenge to the nation in 1976, of the costs of this challenge, but also of the real benefits already hoped for.
Mr. Speaker, when men are willing to take up such a challenge that goes so far as to give a Canadian meaning to the old saying Mens sana in corpore sano, there is no room for selfishness, no room for narrowmindedness, no room for stinginess.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?
June 28, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Is the hon. member raising a point of order?


Pierre De Bané: No, Mr. Speaker, I should like, with the permission of the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe, ask him a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Does the hon. member agree?


Claude Wagner: I should like to reply to all the questions of the hon. member for Matane, but I would not like to encroach upon the time allotted to the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) or to other members, especially the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who is anxiously waiting to deal with his favorite subject.


Pierre De Bané: Here is the question I should like to ask-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Am I to understand that the hon. member does not agree? In that case, I recognize the hon. member for Laval.


Claude Wagner: I readily agree, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre De Bané: I think that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I hope that the hon. member is not raising a point of order.


Pierre De Bané: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe agreed to reply to the question that I am going to ask him and which is as follows: Does-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I did not understand that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe agreed to reply to the question of the hon. member.
I have to repeat my question: Does the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe agree to reply to the questions of the hon. member for Matane?


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I am always ready to answer the hon. member's questions but not to at the expense of all the other hon. members seeking the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Matane has the floor.


Pierre De Bané: My question is very brief: does the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe believe in the financial analysis conducted by the Treasury Board and tabled by the Prime Minister to the effect that the deficit would amount to $172 million? Does he believe in this analysis and, if so, is he prepared to submit an amendment to the bill so that the federal government and not the province of Quebec will pay this $172 million deficit?


Claude Wagner: I would reply to the hon. member that I, for one, never take any financial analysis for gospel truth. Besides, I accept in good faith the commitment voiced by the Prime Minister of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Laval (Mr Roy) has the floor.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must also thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe for
Olympic Bill
his courtesy and commend him for the speech he delivered tonight.
I have also religiously listened to the remarks made by the previous speakers and this is why I had to speak briefly on the second reading of the bill on the 1976 Olympic games.
I will try and discuss its principles; I do not intend to describe to you the situation prevailing in Montreal, This is not the purpose of this bill now and again I do not think that the mere considering of this legislation should not be taken as favouring a decision as to whether or not the Olympic Games will be held in Montreal or not. I think that such a decision has already been confirmed, but tonight we have to consider a piece of legislation relating to a financing program, and I quote:
to provide for the issue for circulation in Canada of Olympic commemorative coins and for the manufacture and sale of Olympic commemorative stamps and postal related products;
I do not intend to deal with the subject from the accountant's viewpoint.
We must not scowl at the Olympic Games. The year 1976 will be the year when Canadians will have the chance to measure their status as responsible men and women.
As far as health and amateur sports are concerned, the Olympic Games represent for the individual one of the most important and most complete tests.
I am proud to see tonight in the House the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) who is studying, listening to his colleagues' arguments for or against this bill.
Therefore, I suggest that the Olympic Games will enable us to measure the ability and the will of those who take part in them. Wherever they come from, all participants must, before getting in the Olympic Games, take part in elementary competitions at the regional, national and international levels.
As I stated at the outset of my remarks, I do not intend to deal with the matter of financing. Some experts have already undertook and others will undertake to debate that matter. But I think that tonight, it is rather a matter of awareness, for all hon. members, of the value of "Olympism" in the development of the individual. Generally, young people who commit suicide are not very fond of sports; they do not like to make efforts. They are afraid to live, they have not been able to come out of themselves in order to face reality and human society. Young people who take drugs are also trying to escape and look for a retreat far from fight, a dream of return to irresponsibility. I suggest that this aspect of "Olympism" is quite valid but very difficult to measure. Therefore, it is a huge privilege for Canada to have been chosen as the host country for the Olympic Games in 1976. In addition to honour, the Olympic Games will make an economic and psychologic contribution for our country.
The Olympic Games are not the exclusive privilege of a province nor of the city of Montreal, but they are a national and international commitment which will bring about national, constructive and specific benefits. In my opinion, there is no room for partisanship or for low-rate arguments against the place chosen for these events to take place. I think that when we talk of the site, we must

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
consider that under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act we will allocate to this project certain sums of money for the acquisition of the site decided on by the city, under a zoning bylaw. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the City of Montreal to decide upon the site and I do not think we have any duty to intervene. It is rather a matter of zoning which comes exclusively under municipal jurisdiction.
I hope that all Canadians /herever they may be will prove equal to the occasion and show a sporting spirit in the negotiation of their contribution to the Olympic Games of 1976. We should not continue, as some do, to curb the initiatives of Mayor Jean Drapeau. He succeeded in getting the Olympic Games of 1976 for Canada, he deserves the highest praise for the efforts he is now making on behalf of these Games in order that they be a success, which will make Canada very proud. We should give him our full co-operation, in order that he may be able to put to work all the machinery that such an achievement requires, and not attempt to demolish what he has been getting for us. We often react as spoiled children, too easily frustrated by the resistance of the realities, in a world that is getting harder very quickly. The Olympic Games will enable us to play hosts to the whole world. Why not take this opportunity and invite all sports fan to a grand feast, that of the joy of living in Canada? Sport is a way to produce citizens of quality.
Mr. Speaker, we should not sulk against the Olympic Games, but on the contrary support them as a significant phase towards the training and disciplining of our Canadian youth.
[ English]


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I think that on rising to speak in this debate I should make one thing very clear because for five years I served as president and then chairman of the Vancouver-Garibaldi executive committee which bid for and sought to bring the 1976 winter Olympics to Garibaldi and Vancouver. During that time-I want to be very fair about this-I had the good fortune to be associated with Canadians right across this country, Canadians who were members of parliament and civil servants, many of them from Quebec. I want to make it very clear to all members of the House that while at times the competition was pretty keen, those years made for me, and I hope for some of those whom I met, friendships which made us all better Canadians. Out of it all we were met with the situation where the city of Montreal received the nod for the summer Olympics from the International Olympics Committee in 1970 in Amsterdam. Life being what it is, that meant that the winter Olympics bid for Canada for that year was out of the running.
It would be idle not to face the fact that that created some problems, especially in my own city. There were those, of course, who asked why, after Expo, Montreal was bidding anyway. There were those who felt that somehow or other this wasn't fair. I say to all members of the House who come from the province of Quebec that I do not think you will find it too difficult to understand why there was such comment. But generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, all

Canadians accepted, I think with some pride, the fact that the summer Olympics were coming to Canada.
I think if that was all there was to this problem, we would not have had the last several years of acrimony, distasteful dispute and unfortunate recrimination that has plagued what ought to be, and what I hope eventually will be, a great thing for this country and a great thing for the world. But I think if it is going to be what I think the majority of us want it to be, there is a time when we will have to become honest with ourselves.
In his opening remarks, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) referred to Canada's participation in past Olympics, and he talked about it all being in the best traditions of the Olympic code. Mr. Speaker, the reason we are in difficulty tonight, and the reason my colleague the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) and some respected friends to my left take the position they do is that unfortunately that bid was not conceived in the highest traditions of the Olympic code. The sooner we all face that fact, admit it and put it behind us, the sooner we can go on to make these games a success, which is what I want and what most of us want.
Let me just say this. In 1968 there were three cities in Canada bidding for the summer Olympic games-Montreal, Toronto and Hamilton. The Montreal bid came in at an estimated cost of $120 million. I have forgotten the exact cost of the other bids; they may not have been any more accurate. The Vancouver winter bid, in contrast, came in with detailed studies, including cost estimates and economic feasibility studies, because the winter bid was saying clearly that we could not put on a winter Olympics in Vancouver, in the mountain country north of the city, without substantial federal and provincial aid.
The position of the Montreal organizing committee was made very clear to the Canadian Olympic Association because those gentlemen asked, "Can you do it without federal funds?" Everyone was conscious of the Expo situation and the answer given was, "Yes, we can." Let me be very frank. Some people were kidding themselves. I do not blame so much the Montreal organizing committee at that point, but I have very serious reservations about whether the members of the Canadian Olympic Association were properly putting their minds to the figures that were in front of them. The fact is that nobody was thinking about the cost. People assumed that somehow or other, if a city could get the games, somebody would have to pay for them later. I refer to an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on April 26, 1969, in which a member of the Canadian Olympic Association was reported as saying:
I think there are two ways of looking at it. One way is to do all the detailed groundwork and feasibility studies the way the B.C. group has done and present your bid on a point by point basis. The other is Mayor Drapeau's way. He is obviously hoping to sell the city to the IOC on the basis of his own personal contacts with these people. You could say he's betting on a kind of mystique that surrounds his reputation.
Let us tonight recognize these things and face them. But that is not where the trouble ended. In 1969, recognizing that Canada could not have two games in one year, members of the Olympic group went to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and raised several points with him. We asked, "What does the Government of Canada want? Does it want the summer games? Does it want the winter games?
June 28, 1973

Does it want any games?" And as long ago as 1969 you could not get a clear answer from the government on this issue. That is where the problem became really compounded.
This afternoon and tonight reference was made to a letter which was sent by the Government of Canada, under the signature of the right hon. Prime Minister, to the International Olympics Committee. The date of that letter was May 21, 1969. It went to the international committee and it invited the athletes of the world to come to Canada and support Montreal in the event that it should be selected. The effect of that letter was that Canada put its name on the line and invited the world to come here.
Before that letter was signed, the government of the day was told in no uncertain terms that if it had any doubt about the capacity of Montreal to finance, if it had any doubt about the capacity of Vancouver-Garibaldi to finance, if it had any doubt about either of the bids, it must not send the letter because it would be taken around the world as a carte blanche obligation to have the games in whichever city won in the bidding. There is no use quibbling about this. That is what that letter was; it was a letter inviting the world to come to Canada.
Now, because Montreal was apparently not asking for funds there was some discussion on why should we inquire what the cost would be to Montreal, but finally this was agreed. An undertaking was given by the right hon. Prime Minister that neither bidding city would get this letter of invitation until it had proved to the Government of Canada that its cost estimates were accurate and that it was in the interests of the country to put on the games. That was fair. That was taken by the people who met with the right hon. Prime Minister to mean that the Government of Canada was indeed going to concern itself at the front end of this problem, with the costs, and that we would have honest bids. But something happened and I do not know why or how. Only a short time later, a matter of weeks, a letter went out on behalf of Montreal without the Government of Canada ever having taken a look at the costs and studying them.
These are facts. One therefore asks why we are in this mess tonight and why are we debating this matter. I say, look to the spring of 1969 when the Government of Canada, having been told the facts, having been told the significance of these things, decided to ignore them. I think all hon. members and all Canadians must remember one thing. I may not agree with the right hon. Prime Minister about a lot of things, but he is my Prime Minister, and was then, and it was the Government of Canada that extended the invitation. To hon. members and to the Canadian people I say that this country invited the world to come here for the Olympics, and no matter what qualms we may have about how we got into this situation, that is an indisputable fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: I have a lot of sympathy for some of the comments I heard this afternoon. There are those who say there are other priorities on which we should spend the money-perhaps the St. Lawrence River needs cleaning up
Olympic Bill
more than the games are needed; perhaps there is a greater need for low-cost housing. If we needed to debate these questions, they should have been debated a long time ago. Were we happy about the fact that some of these priorities were not debated a long time ago? I am saying to some hon. members that we were as blind a few years ago as I am accusing the government of being blind in this matter. Three or four years ago-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I interrupt the hon. member to request him to address the Chair instead of his colleagues.


John Allen Fraser: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members, "Where was your voice a few years ago? The facts were not different." Here is the situation: as a nation, we have invited the world, and we have to find a way to do the best we can and put on the finest Olympics in the best sense of the Olympics tradition.


Mr. L'Heureux:: We will support you.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I think the position of my party has been made very clear. I think it is a responsible position and the right position for Canadians to take. I do not disagree entirely with what some colleagues to my left have said or probably will say but I ask them, if this bill is defeated, what is the alternative? It may be to pass another bill in which we agree carte blanche to pick up all of whatever deficit there may be, or it may be to scratch the thing completely. This seems to be the tenor of the remarks I have heard today.
This is 1973, Mr. Speaker, and the games have to be ready for 1976. Speaking in support of this bill,, and speaking as strongly as I can to urge all Canadians to make this a first-class Canadian event, does not mean that there are not questions which are raised by the bill itself. It is not clear what the cost of the games will be. The first estimate in 1968 was $120 million; by February of this year the figure was $310 million, and a week or two ago the commissioner estimated the cost to be $325 million. As I understand it, at one point the federal government estimated the cost to be $410 million, and we are all aware of the federal government's report which indicates a potential $172 million deficit. While I think we must support these games, I think it is up to us parliamentarians to make sure that the cost is somewhere around $310 million and that we do not get into a fully or partially open-ended program.
It is not correct to think that the Olympics belong to cities and not nations. We can no longer hide our eyes and pretend that only the organizing committee has any say in what goes on. Organizing committees get their governments involved. Governments have to pay, and of course it is the people who are paying. The people then, through the government, should have something to say about how the games are managed. We can no longer afford to walk away from our responsibility in this matter.
I should like to bring another point to the attention of hon. members in this regard, Mr. Speaker. This may not be the only Olympic bid put forward by this country. Vancouver may very well put in a bid for the 1980 winter games. That decision will have to be made quickly because
5184

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
it will be heard internationally in 1974. The organization group in Vancouver has been seeking to discuss this question with the government. I say to the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, that they had better discuss it now, not tomorrow or the next day.
If the Olympics, and sports generally in this country are to have any credibility, we cannot afford to pull the gaffe that we have pulled on these summer games, with all the anguish that is involved. As one who has been a member at large of the Olympic committee and who has been deeply interested in sports all my life, believing in the ideals of the Olympic movement, I say with great sincerity that the Government of Canada will have to be much more realistic than it has been about its role in the early stages of decision-making in Olympics and international sports federation events. If we can learn from our mistakes, then we are getting somewhere. It is my hope that we can and we will.
Coming back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the object is to put $250 million into the Olympics fund in order to defray the cost of the games. I am seriously concerned whether a $470 million issue of coins will be sufficient to give us the revenue. There seems to be a lot of doubt about this. I think the committee will have to look very hard at this suggestion to see how effective it will be. We must recognize that whatever city had been awarded the games, the federal government would still be put to other expenses. In looking at the immediate costs of the games I do not think we should forget all the other expenses the federal government will be put to with respect to immigration, security and other matters. These expenses must be accepted, no matter which city holds the games. In fairness we must consider that aspect of the matter.
We must also carefully consider just how accurate the cost estimates are and in what way the federal presence is to be exercised in order to keep costs within the estimates. We must keep in mind especially that there are letters of guarantee from the city of Montreal and from the government of the province of Quebec which say to the people of Canada and, in effect, to the federal government, "If we are wrong and fall short of funds, we will not come to you for funds."
I hope hon. members realize that if we are to retain credibility in the eyes of the public, we cannot put this bill through and say, "There, we have solved it," and a short time later have this matter brought back before the House and face the accusation that we did not look at it carefully enough. Let no one say, "Although we said we are not going to come back for any more money, you should have realized that we could not do it." That is the argument that has been used consistently.
I must concede that what hon. friends to my left say sounds like an ominous warning. It behooves all of us, when examining this bill in committee, to heed that warning. The organizing committee, the Canadian Olympic Association and departments of government must make sure that the House does not again debate this issue. I cannot be too emphatic in saying that if anyone is to blame for what is happening, it is the government that

either did not see or refused to see that it cannot slough off its responsibilities. The question of whether we shall have the games or not have them has gone beyond the point of asking. We are Canadians in this House and we are Canadians across this land, and we have made a bad start in this matter.
However, there is no reason why, given good will, some hardheaded thinking and responsible action, we cannot join together to make these games unique and worth while and, like Expo, an event which will bring Canadians who are not Quebeckers to that beautiful part of our country so that Quebeckers can meet many people not from Quebec in an atmosphere of comradeship, pride and patriotism, and so we can continue building this country into the sort of country we believe it can be.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I must begin my speech by referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) who just resumed his seat. Whenever I am here and the hon. member speaks, I always listen attentively to what he has to say to the House. I should like to discuss what I think is the major point he made in his address before making my own remarks.
He made the point that this country has already made a commitment and that we cannot go back on it, no matter how unhappy we may feel about it or about the way in which the commitment was made. I suggest to hon. members of this House that the commitment has not been made, that commitments of this country are made in this House, and this one is now being discussed. There is still time for us to make the right decision. The invitation, as the hon. member quite rightly said, is not from a city or section of this country but is from this country as a whole, and as we extend this invitation we should be fully aware of all its implications.
I also admired another point that the hon. member made, which is this. It is clear that the people of Canada as a whole will pay the bill, if indeed there is a bill to be paid and we strongly suspect there will be. However, there is something more direct about the bill that is before us. It is as if the government were asking us to pretend that we are not involved and that all we are being asked to do is facilitate a process which has to be carried on and directed by somebody else. I say that if we are to be involved in this we will pick up the cost, but we will also participate in the invitation and in the direction of the Olympic games.
Although I find myself disagreeing with the stated intentions of the hon. member for Vancouver South, I must admit that I listened to his proposals with interest and in the spirit in which they were delivered. They were forthright, direct and to the point before us-very unlike, I am sorry to say, the remarks addressed to this House by an hon. member who preceded him, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who spent considerable time not in arguing about the bill but, to use language which is not that of Voltaire or Shakespeare, in argumen-tum ad hominem directed at the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe also referred to the language of Shakespeare but did not use the very words of Shakespeare when he suggested, in so
June 28, 1973

many words, "methinks the hon. member doth protest too much".
I listened closely to the comments by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) directed at the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) and while his rather mellifluous lucubrations were quite eloquent, I noted that they were rather an attack against the views of the hon. member than remarks on the bill now under consideration.
In his comments he also launched a vigorous appeal to our sense of patriotism. It is always dangerous, Mr. Speaker, to appeal constantly to patriotism.
Surely in this House a member may object to a bill without being accused of a lack of national, pan-Canadian, regional or local patriotism.
It happens today that I agree with the hon. member for Matane. It does not always happen, because we do not sit on the same side of the House, but I agree with him while I note that several of his colleagues do not. That very seldom happens, but I would very much like to see, this evening or tomorrow, one of his colleagues rise and stick up for the reputation of the hon. member for Matane, even though he will not defend his position, because, after all, it must be recognized that his words were spoken in all clarity and honesty. I spoke of patriotism a moment ago, and I can foresee that this appeal to patriotism in this House with regard to the subject before the House, this type of verbal bludgeoning, will be made repeatedly in the future with regard to the 1976 Olympic Games.
Some have said that Olympic coins will cost nothing. I can imagine that in the vicinity of Montreal, Toronto, where there are industries, various committees will approach the industrialists and tell them: Listen: why not put $15's worth of Olympic coins in the pay envelopes Friday. That will cost nothing, and $15 is $15. As for the workers, that amount of $15 will be fine and dandy, since it will be Olympic coins.
That means simply that those coins will spread throughout Canada and that the Canadian people will pay for them.
Why kid ourselves, why be blind? We will pay for that money, even if it does not come directly out of the federal coffers. I must add that, even in the case of the federal treasury, the money will be paid because in fact we will be able to issue new coins to be added to the money supply in the country; it boils down to this: the money will be paid out of our resources, no more no less.
I should like to ask hon. members, specially those who sit on my right, they who are concerned about inflation, whether they have thought of that. This is not a matter of a few million dollars, but of hundreds of millions. And to come back again briefly to the allusion I made a while ago, it is not so much the fact that Canada will have to pay that bothers me but the fact that some would claim, here, in this House, that Canada and the Canadians will not pay; I would rather another bill were introduced and the hon. members grouped here, who represent all areas of Canada,
Olympic Bill
were told: Now, listen: the Olympic Games are our business and we will pay what must be paid.

However, Mr. Speaker, as I suggested a while ago, to stand in opposition to this bill is not particularly easy. It is a topic that appeals to nationalism, athleticism, the youth, brotherhood and all that is best in sport. One feels a certain uneasiness in standing and attacking the principle of this bill. I suggest that we in this House cannot wash our hands of this matter. We cannot say it really belongs to another jurisdiction, in the manner of Pontius Pilate when, while washing his hands in a basin, said in effect, "I will leave it to another court. It really has nothing to do with me." This matter really has an awful lot to do with us.
As the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) indicated this afternoon, there are many ways in which the people of Canada will be paying for this venture. Like him, I certainly do not begrudge the fact that if the event is held, police services must be provided by the federal authorities. Fair enough. I do not begrudge the services of personnel of the federal government being offered for the event. Fair enough. What I begrudge is the indirect and almost sneaky way in which we are levying taxes on the people of Canada to pay for this event.
Perhaps the worst example, not so much in terms of the quantity of money involved, because the coinage issue will certainly take care of that, is that of a lottery. We must admit that a lottery is fundamentally a tax on the poor. If one is against lotteries, one might be accused of being a little square because there are getting to be quite a few in this country. I am not against lotteries as long as they do not pretend to do the job that proper and equitable taxation should do. I think lotteries are fine for frivolous purposes. They are fine for those who like to gamble a little money to support a purpose that is not too serious. But when a lottery is approved by a state and pretends to support hospitals-


Mr. Yewchuk:: How about the Manitoba sweepstakes?


John Paul Harney: My opposition is absolute as long as the lottery pretends to support something that is worth while. I say, go to the people directly and honestly and ask them to pay their way through taxes. A lottery is a tax on the poor. It is one of the most infamous ways for a government to raise money. Canadians will pay. As I said a while ago, if they decide on this event they should pay because the event is in Canada and is being held here not just for the world but for the sake of Canada. We should be prepared to finance it directly. However, once we realize we are going to finance it, the proposals put forward by the hon. member for Matane become very real.
There are other things that we should be doing in this country at this moment rather than setting up another Pharaohic monument to the mayor of Montreal. By the way, I think it is important to state at this stage that if this kind of Olympic venture were to be held in the city of Toronto, part of which I represent, I would oppose it; if it were held in Vancouver, I would oppose it: it has nothing to do with the fact that it is being held in Montreal, although the contrast between what Montreal as a major metropolis of this country needs and what it is going to be
26446-38J

June 28, 1973
Olympic Bill
offered for the next three years and in 1976 is staggering to the point of being obscene.
The figures read to us this afternoon by the hon. member for Matane speak for themselves. I will not repeat them. There is the violation of green space and the lack of proper housing. To totally discregard the need for public housing in Montreal is something which certainly strikes home. Perhaps the most important point is that the time and talent of so many people in this country, particularly in that city, will be directed almost totally to these games for the next 3'A years. As this time and talent is taken up, it will not be used to redress the problems of the people. "What about prestige?", people will say. This question is often asked. National prestige is involved. But national prestige brings very little supper to the tables of many of our citizens.
[ Translation]
And I might say that in several parts of this country people are getting sick and tired of prestige. They will tell me perhaps that we are opposed to the Olympic Games. No! We are not against the games, but against this particular type of Olympic Games.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that Canada, which is so proud, could set an example for the world by creating a program for the Olympic Games which will be held in this country, for games which would not require such foolish expenses, during which we would insist on a more massive participation by young people. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether really a large enough fraction of the people, of our youth in Canada will be engaged in these games, not as spectators, and I should say indirect spectators because the games will be seen on TV. And if we truly had the spirit of the Olympic Games-they refer quite often to the qualities required since Antiquity for these games-we might very well say: In ancient times, the Greeks managed with much less spending, and engaged in a way which did not change their priorities, which did not take from a certain class of people the resources required in order to satisfy a very small minority.

Although reference was made this afternoon to the Athenian ideal, perhaps we should take a more spartan approach to the games. Rather than build this Olympic village as proposed by the mayor of Montreal-we do not quite know exactly what it will be except that it has to accommodate tens of thousands of athletes, and to accommodate them very well for a mere two weeks-


Otto John Jelinek: Don't overexaggerate.


John Paul Harney: If 10,000 is too many, I will say 9,000.


Otto John Jelinek: And then it will be sold to the public.


John Paul Harney: Yes; the whole bag will be sold to the public. To build housing of that kind which is totally inappropriate to social housing and to pass it off as a worth-while venture is, I suggest, playing the classic and ancient shell game.
Statements have been made about this long before I stood up here. I should like to refer to the study made by

the Social Development Council of Montreal. To quote a brief made public this winter, the council felt that the construction of a centralized Olympic village as suggested by Mayor Drapeau would "have repercussions on the lives of thousands of Montrealers for many years to come". The council went on to suggest very strongly that the plans laid down for public housing by the city of Montreal should be followed, and that rather than build one large housing unit, units housing no more than 250 family groups should be spread out throughout the city.
There have also been other objections from slightly different quarters in the city, and they are worth noting. A body called Le Regroupement in Montreal stated the case very well when it said in a brief which it presented the other day:
[ Translation]
We wish to say to the federal government that it must not consider itself merely as a banker when allocating funds to the CMHC to build the Olympic village. It must demand absolute respect for the Corporation's criteria, before approving the Olympic village housing projects.
Le Regroupement also points up to the federal government the fact that it holds the key to at least three solutions for possible sites for building an Olympic village, namely: La Cite du Havre, the Angus shops and the Longue Pointe military barracks.
There are other possibilities. Even if we want the Games to take place, it is not necessary to go about it the way things are being done at present in Montreal.
I suggest to hon. members that it is not too late for us to reconsider the invitation that has been sent out on our behalf. If we decide here and now in this House to refuse to go along with this shell game that is being proposed to us by the government, we can have a definite hand in the invitation and in the planning for the games and in setting up an Olympic games for Canada of which the people of this country could certainly be proud.
I want to end by saying what should not have to be said, but I am afraid it is necessary, and it is this. Our opposition to the games in Montreal is not because the games are in Montreal. To give an earnest of our feelings and intentions, we would be quite willing to see the $500 million spent in that sector of the country for other and more socially useful purposes.
I would simply remind members of the House, in conclusion, that after the party is over some 3lA years from now, if we go ahead with these games, the hangover will still be with us, and with us for a long time. In the cold light of the dawn that will follow we will still have to walk through the slum areas of our cities. We will still have to turn away in disgust from the polluted St. Lawrence River and from those children of this country who are suffering from malnutrition. The cold light following the Olympic games will not have been worth the binge.
June 28, 1973



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, on March 25 I put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) regarding flight 141, Toronto to Calgary. I asked for a full report on the flight plus a report regarding how many in-flight engine failures we had had on Air Canada during the past year. I was on a flight from Toronto to Calgary on March 23. It started as a normal flight, a few minutes behind schedule owing to repairs to a minor, technical item: at least, that was the reason Air Canada gave for the delay. During the flight the engine exploded and caught fire. Many of the passengers were frightened. Three businessmen from the city of Lethbridge said that the plane was shaking as if the wings were going to fall off. The purser of the plane said there was a seven-foot gash in the fuselage.
The curious thing is that Air Canada has since decided that the incident did not occur as we passengers saw it occur. Air Canada and the minister responsible for transport says it was a minor incident-just the falling off of a piece of metal used to streamline the engine; there was no fire, no serious problem and no danger to the passengers. Obviously, the people who said that were not on that plane.
The fire indicator indicated no fire, but the vibration indicator was registering the maximum. The fire indicator was not indicating a fire because it was not working. Air Canada says it was not working because it was damaged when the piece of metal flew off. It must be a very useful indicator if it quits functioning the minute anything goes wrong! Another curious thing about the fire indicator is that it had already malfunctioned once and that was the reason the plane was delayed in Toronto. Officials said they had fixed it there and it broke immediately after as a result of the engine problem. It seems much more likely that this thing was not correctly fixed, and the attempt to fix it may even have been the reason for the engine problem.
The government still claims that the incident was minor. Since I raised the question in the House I have received letters from fellow passengers, all in support of my view of the occasion. The minister's replies to my earlier questions suggested that "the engine did not catch fire or explode after take-off from Toronto". That seems pretty clear, yet the maintenance report on the flight reads:
Arrived YZ ramp (Toronto) with log snag 861. Explosion and severe vibration number 3 engine. Hydraulic loss.
The report suggests there was no fire warning of any kind, but very severe vibration with the vibration indica-
Adjournment Debate
tor full-scale following the initial explosion. The second officer reported a ring of fire around the nose bullet flange. I ask, what is the minister trying to sell us when he says there was no explosion? Is he suggesting I could not see what I did see? The experts of Air Canada say there was an explosion but the public relations people of Air Canada say there was not.
The incident itself is over but it has raised several important questions. For instance, how safe is Air Canada compared with other airlines, and why is the government unwilling to investigate the matter openly and honestly? The government has told me that I and my fellow passengers did not see the things we saw. It has hidden the question. Air Canada has not appeared eager to open the subject, either. As I reported to the press, there was a lack of morale, no one knew what was happening, the service was bad and most of the time there was almost chaos.
Canadians have a right to know how safe their airlines are; they have the right to know whether their tax dollars are being spent for a dangerous and secretive airline or whether their money is being spent on a good provider of transport for the Canadian people. At the moment the government does not wish the people to know about Air Canada. In face of repeated efforts by the chairman of the transport committee, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and many others, the government continues not to allow the committee to study Air Canada's annual report.
There may be some excuse for strictly government concern with Crown corporations when they are running well, but when Crown corporations are expensive, ill-managed and a danger to the safety of Canadians it is high time the representatives of the people of Canada had a say in what is being paid for with their money.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has sent two letters of reply to the hon. member. The second letter went into greater detail than the first in response to the hon. member's second query. At this point I can only reiterate the facts as they have already been stated.
On March 23 an Air Canada DC-8 en route from Toronto to Calgary developed an operating problem in its No. 3 engine shortly after take-off. The engine was shut down and the aircraft returned to Toronto, as is normal procedure. Passengers were transferred to another aircraft to continue their journey. There had been no problem earlier between Montreal and Toronto. The incident was reported immediately that evening to the ministry of transport, Canadian Press and the CBC.
I am sure my hon. colleague from Lethbridge-Lethbridge is a beautiful town which I know very well; I still have in my office the flag given to me by the mayor-will be interested to know that what passengers reported as fire was most probably the glow of sparks caused by rubbing of the engine's fan blades on its stainless steel case. An overhead bearing caused the bullet nose cowling and a portion of the side cowling to become detached. The bearing ignited a small oil and magnesium fire within the engine. I am sure my hon. colleague could not see within the engine. However, as provided by the engine design, it

June 28, 1973
Adjournment Debate
extinguished itself when the source of ignition was removed and would not have been visible to the crew or passengers.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: My report is from the pilot.


Marcel Prud'homme: The reported explosion was in fact engine surge caused by the partial and temporary blocking of the engine air intake by passage of the nose cowling as it left the engine. The cowling scraped the wing top, causing a six-inch tear and made a small perforation in the midship galley door, but no serious damage was done to the airframe. There was, of course, damage to the power plant itself.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-NORTHERN ONTARIO POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF CROWN CORPORATION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) about the establishment of a Crown corporation in northern Ontario. The only answer I received was that either the matter would be looked at, or that the minister did not go into specifics with respect to the mechanism of a Crown corporation for northern Ontario when he discussed such matters with the Ontario government. I find it very difficult to reconcile such evasive answers when the minister admits the situation in northern Ontario is not a healthy one. I quote from his statement to the Standing Committee on Regional Development on April 10, 1973:
Northern Ontario has experienced a growth rate in population of less than one per cent per year throughout the decade of the 1960s, slightly below the average for the Atlantic region.
He went on to say:
The general social and economic climate in northern Ontario suggest that special efforts will be required if there is to be a significant increase in the employment and value of production derived from the extensive natural resource base and an increase in the viability of some of the urban centres.
It is two months since that statement was made, and I have been patiently waiting for the minister to outline his department's approach to "special efforts". One of the special efforts I have been suggesting is a Crown corporation for northern Ontario. It is not a new concept and it has worked to the benefit of other economically depressed areas such as with Devco on Cape Breton island. As a matter of fact, the idea of a Crown corporation is also proposed in the government's report entitled "Ontario Regional Review", and I quote from that document as follows:
The nature of the regional development problems in northern Ontario, however, calls for substantially more initiative on the part of the public sector in the future than has been the case in the past.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the need for greater initiative by this government should be shown, and such initiative manifests itself in direct government investment through a Crown Corporation. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has contented itself with the carrot approach by offering incentive grants to industry to locate in northern Ontario. That program has been less than spectacular. From 1969 to 1972, $31 million went to northern Ontario in

the form of grants, but two of the biggest beneficiaries, or bunnies, namely, Algoma Steel and Ecstall Mining, ate up most of the carrots-that is, $21 million. The remaining $11 million was spread among 55 firms.
So far as jobs are concerned, the Sudbury area expects 38 jobs, Thunder Bay 104, Sault Ste. Marie 77, Timmins 113, and North Bay 304. That is a disgraceful performance. Both provincial and federal departments have in their files studies which show the kind of viable secondary industries which would prosper in northern Ontario. For example, the most recent study done for the provincial government is entitled "Prospects for an Expanded NonFerrous Metals Industrial Complex for Northern Ontario". It was written and edited by Gerald Hodge and Cheuk Wong. Such a complex has possibilities for success in northern Ontario, but this government refuses to take the kind of decisive action which in the past has overcome many formidable problems which faced Canada.
The people of northern Ontario want decisive action now, not after the Liberal government has permitted mining ghost towns across the north. Indeed, many of us in the north have quickly come to the conclusion that putting a Liberal government in charge of regional development is like putting a pope in charge of a birth control program.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have studied with great interest the representations of the hon. member.

I am concerned about what he has said because other members from northern Ontario have spoken to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson)-and when I say "other members", I mean members of our party-time and time again about providing additional financial assistance to that area. What is wanted is not only some form of assistance to companies and industries, but also a program to make communities more attractive sites for economic development.
The minister listened to the advice given him by hon. members when he appeared before the standing committee on his departmental estimates, and he is fully aware of the very helpful evidence supplied to the standing committee when it held hearings in Sudbury on May 30, 1973. The hon. member attended that meeting and so did members of this side. The minister expressed to the committee his concern about the growth of the general economy of northern Ontario and indicated that it was his intention to meet with provincial ministers to explore ways in which it might be appropriate for his department to assist more effectively in the economic and social development of the region. A very useful meeting was held with the government of Ontario on June 7 and a working party has been established to study the various approaches and proposals which are under consideration.
With respect to the hon. member's suggestion of a Crown corporation, this is one of a number of mechanisms which will be considered. It has been used in various forms in other provinces, namely, the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation, New Brunswick Mul-
June 28, 1973

tiplex Incorporated, and Metropolitan Area Growth Investments Ltd. in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. Whether this type of instrument will be appropriate in northern Ontario is a question which will require extensive discussion, and I want the hon. member to understand clearly that it has not been ruled out. It is now being strongly considered. The members from northern Ontario will want to consider its merits as well.


MULTICULTURALISM-AUTHORITY OF MINISTER OVER PUBLIC SERVANTS INVOLVED IN PROGRAM
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by expressing my appreciation to the Chair and to the table for their courtesy in giving priority to the matter which I am raising tonight. I also have a starred question on the order paper with respect to this matter. I appreciate that the minister has not yet had a chance to reply to it. I raise this question because of the very great urgency surrounding the affair, which I think can probably be called the Ostrey affair, involving the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism (Mr. Haidasz), which arose in this House last week regarding a situation in which the minister was being ordered about by the assistant deputy minister of citizenship.
This is important for two reasons. The first reason is the importance of multiculturalism and the symbol that the actions of last week display of the very slight regard the government in fact has for the multicultural program. The second, and perhaps the even more important reason, is the question of the responsibility of the minister in parliament and the right of the Parliament of Canada to be able to go to a minister and hold him accountable for the actions for which he presumably speaks. We in this party have protested previously that the multicultural program as put forward by the government is a false front, a public relations gesture.
We raised this question in 1969 when the Official Languages Act was before the House. At that time amendments were introduce by my colleague from Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and were rejected out of hand by the government. Now, that concept of multiculturalism which the government rejected in 1969 has been embraced in a way that is weak, that is late and that is lamentably partisan.
We believe that a multicultural policy is highly important because multiculturalism is a highly important part of this country and has to be encouraged. But tonight I want to speak particularly about responsibility to parliament. When I addressed my question to the minister, I addressed him as the minister who seemed to be a little bit responsible for multiculturalism, but I think I was exaggerating. We have not asked ourselves, what does responsible mean in terms of this minister? He clearly cannot be regarded as responsible in literal or practical terms for the activities of a department that comes under another minister. He is clearly a second-class minister who has less power than an assistant secretary of state.
We have had this once before. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) was once attached in a similar way to the department of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when the government of that day desired to put forward a false front of wanting
Adjournment Debate
to hold consultations with the Indian and native peoples. The device was clearly designed to mislead.
In the statute, two types of ministers of state are set out. The essential difference is that one has power and the other does not. This is spelled out in the Government Organization Act, 1971. The government at that time made the minister of state responsible for urban affairs a meaningful figure, but refused to do that with the minister of state responsible for multiculturalism. This shows that the latter is a phony department, interested in public relations and not in a program.
I suggest that this matter is far more serious than the simple abuse involved in spending money on advertisements or insubordination by an assistant secretary of state. When we get into this practice of institutionalizing phony ministers who are unable to act, who are unable to report, we are setting a dangerous precedent for parliament. I think this would be terribly embarrassing for the minister, embarrassing enough that he would want to resign rather than hold on to a fagade. But if it satisfies the minister, I want to make it clear that it does not satisfy us. That kind of arrangement simply does not satisfy us because we believe that recognition of the multicultural nature of this country is highly important. To a segment of the public it is a highly important part of our past, and should be an important part of our future. It should not be played around with, Mr. Speaker.
There will be some reply tonight. I have great respect for the parliamentary secretary who has the responsibility of replying. However, I think that real respect for and recognition of the importance of multiculturalism will have to come with a change in the status of the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism. This will involve a change from the situation where he has no power into one where we have a minister of state who has enough power to deal with an aspect of our society which is recognized as being unique to Canada, and which is being played around with in a second-rate way by the government.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the question raised by my honourable friend has very interesting aspects and although I do not share his views I must admit nevertheless that the question he has raised deserves very serious consideration.
It is not my responsibility as Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State to give a complete answer, although I recognize that the matter should be considered for it entails extremely important principles, but my answer will merely deal directly with the matter.
[ English]
The minister fully directs th.jse officers of the Department of the Secretary of State who are exclusively assigned to the multicultuial program and shares with the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) the direction of those officers who are only partially engaged in multicultural work.
[ Translation]
In my opinion, this is a direct answer to the question, but I shall hasten to convey to the Minister responsible for multiculturalism the interesting points raised by my hon. friend on this important subject.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Friday, June 29, 1973