1973-07-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices-Mr. Cullen.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I am tabling copies in both official languages of an agreement in principle concerning a joint transportation development program in northern British Columbia.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table in both official languages a report from the Textile and Clothing Board on cotton yarns.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great personal sadness that I advise the House of the death yesterday of His Excellency Dr. Joseph Francis Shields, the Irish Ambassador to Canada. Dr. Shields was a true representative of his country with a warm and understanding personality, well seasoned with Irish wit. He devoted all his efforts while in
Canada to furthering Irish-Canadian relations, at no little cost to his own health. I know that the many members of this House who also knew Dr. Shields will share my sorrow at his passing.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	On what date does the government plan to begin construction of an Ethnic Studies Centre?
2.	In what city (or cities) will such a centre (or centres) be located?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1.
The government does not plan to construct an Ethnic Studies Centre.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Of the ships involved in the contracts issued in 1971 and 1972 for hauling Arctic cargo by water, how many of the ships involved were during the life of the contract or shortly thereafter sold for scrap (a) what were the names of each (b) to which companies did they belong?
2.	If the government is not aware of the eventual disposal of such vessels, for what reason?


Hon.. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2.
None to our knowledge, however, M. V. Tavastiand, operated by Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. Ltd. was damaged during the 1972 sealift and it is understood the vessel will be scrapped.


Mr. Lawrence: What amounts were charged by the government and subsequently forgiven, for the use of Canadian Armed Forces personnel and equipment to, in or for the use of any of the provinces or territories within Canada, in the year 1958 and in each of the years 1962 to 1972 inclusive, for any purpose, listing the number of Forces personnel and type of equipment utilized, the dates and purposes of the operation, the details of the charges and the reasons and authority for the subsequent forgiveness of "write-offs"?

July 25, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. No charges to the provinces or territories for the use of Canadian armed forces personnel or equipment have been written off. As reported in the Auditor-General's Report for fiscal year 1971/72, there are outstanding accounts with six provinces and one of the territories for a total of $845,000.
2. The federal government, in accordance with Section 13 of the Financial Administration Act and the then applicable Privy Council Order 1962-13/653, waived charges to the Province of Quebec for Canadian Forces personnel and equipment called out in aid of the civil power in October 1970. Within a few hours of the request from the province, the forces were placed under the authority of the War Measures Act and thus deemed to be performing a federal service in a national emergency. This was a role provided for within defence priorities and hence an integral part of a departmental program for which provision had been made within departmental appropriations.


Mr. McKinnon: Has there been an increase from September, 1972 to March, 1973 in the hours of overtime worked in the Victoria Post Office, City Floor and, if so (a) by how much (b) on this basis, will the Postmaster General now consider thawing the freeze on hiring permanent employees in that area?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: (a) The following are the amounts of overtime worked in the Victoria Post Office, City Floor, during the months shown: September 1972, 1,228 hours; October 1972, 1,369 hours; November 1972, 1,351 hours; December 1972, 457 hours; January 1973, 1,635 hours; February 1973, 1,755 hours; March 1973, 2,319 hours; (excludes overtime worked on Statutory Holidays), (b) There has not been a "freeze" for many years, relating to the hiring of employees.


Mr. Mather: What was the total federal deficit in the period 1962-1972?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: For the 11
fiscal years commencing with 1962-63 and ending with 1972-73, the total federal deficit was $3,336 million.


Mr. Cossitt: Has the Prime Minister or his office received any notification or indication from Mr. Ivan Head of his intention to terminate his employment for purposes of seeking nomination as a candidate of the Liberal Party in the next federal election and, if so, on what date will such termination take place?


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


Mr. Cossitt: Has the Prime Minister or his office received any notification or indication from Mr. Martin O'Connell of his intention to termi-

nate his employment for purposes of seeking nomination as a candidate of the Liberal Party in the next federal election and, if so, on what date will such termination take place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No. However, Mr. O'Connell has indicated his intention at some future date to seek nomination as a candidate in the next federal election.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the Prime Minister or his office received any notification or indication from Mr. John Roberts of his intention to terminate his employment for purposes of seeking nomination as a candidate of the Liberal Party in the next federal election and, if so, on what date will such termination take place?
2.	Is it the intention of the government or the Prime Minister to replace Mr. Roberts with a person who was a defeated Liberal candidate in the 1972 federal election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. John Roberts tendered his resignation on June 5, 1973 to become effective as of June 22, 1973.
2. In due course, a suitable replacement will be found for Mr. Roberts.


Mr. Atkey: 1.	(a) On what date was Mr. John Roberts appointed Program Secretary to the Prime Minister (b) on what date did he resign this position (c) what was the annual rate of salary he was paid in this position (d) what was the total amount of salary and expense monies actually paid to him during the time he held this position?
2.	Since his resignation as Program Secretary, has any department or agency of the government, or any Minister, entered into any type of contract or arrangement with Mr. John Roberts or with any corporation controlled by him or of which he is an employee and, if so, what is the per diem rate for fees and expenses that are to be paid to him or his corporation or employer for his services and what fees and expenses have actually been paid to him to date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. (a) See
answer to Question No. 612 (Hansard Page 4,150). (b) See answer to Question No. 2,312. (c) See answer to Question No. 612 (Hansard Page 4,150). (d) $16,757.33.
2. No.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the Task Force Report of December 15, 1972 in connection with the requirements for a Pacific Environment Centre (TEAG) state that employees and the public will have difficulty with access to this site and, if so (a) what plans have been made to overcome this problem (b) do the estimates for the Environment Centre include additional costs which will be required to meet this problem?
2.	Did the Report indicate that a Third Crossing of Burrard Inlet may be necessary, particularly with respect to location of site facilities and, if so, what has been the reaction of the Vancouver City Council and the Government of British Columbia to such a proposal?
3.	Did the Report indicate that by the time the Centre is ready for occupancy in 1976 or 1977 there will be over 400 persons employed at the proposed new site and, if so, has the government
July 25, 1973

taken into consideration (a) the environmental impact (b) the traffic congestion (c) the additional air pollution which may be generated on this route and in the area of the proposed site?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Environment):: 1. The TEAG Report recognized that the proposed site will cause a major change in commuting patterns for many employees. The Report suggested the need for over-or-under crossing of the railroad tracks and for at least two access/egress roads to the site. TEAG is being re-engaged to report further on solutions to these problems.
2.	The third crossing was being actively considered by all three levels of government at the time of the TEAG study. The TEAG Report indicated that the possibility of a crossing of Burrard Inlet being built near the site may prove a significant factor in site planning. An in-depth study of the matter will be needed before final decisions are made regarding location of site facilities. There has been little evidence since that time that the three levels of government will proceed with a third crossing in the near future.
3.	The TEAG Report estimated 446 employees on the site by the end of 1977; (a) the Centre will enhance the immediate environment and is planned as a stimulating working milieu for employees and an attractive information centre for visitors: (b) TEAG is being re-engaged to provide a further study of traffic problems; and (c) it is the intention that the Centre will set a good example by strictly observing existing criteria and regulations designed to preserve air quality. It is planned to accommodate a tower, equipped with air quality sensors, at the Centre.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the Task Force Report on a Pacific Environment Centre consider or recommend locations other than the North Shore and, if so (a) which ones (b) for what reason were these locations not considered satisfactory?
2.	Who decided on the proposed site?


Bill Rompkey: 1. Yes; (a) False Creek, U.B.C. Endownment Lands, Steveston, and (b) False Creek site was rejected because some of the long-term leases would unduly delay planning and construction of the Centre; U.B.C. Endownment Lands because they were too remote to be readily accessible to downtown public and because of lack of dock facilities; Steveston because it was too remote and unsuitable for the development of adequate docking facilities.
2. The three sites proposed in the preliminary study were determined to be unsuitable or unavailable at that time. The Department was advised in the spring of 1972 that the Fullerton property in North Vancouver was expected to become available. Because of its size and suitability for the construction of docking facilities, TEAG recommended this site.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Has the government considered the advisability of retaining the Atmospheric Environmental Service at Vancouver International Airport where the weather office is now located and is to be enlarged?
2.	Where do the majority of the weather office staff reside and is the government considering some measure to alleviate the financial penalty on the majority of aviation weather forecasting personnel which will be brought about by a change in location?
3.	Will the government reimburse employees who relocate to North Vancouver?


Bill Rompkey: 1. Enlargement of the main weather office (the Pacific Weather Central) was done two years ago. The decision to move this office from the airport was based on three considerations: (i) The Ministry of Transport has indicated a future need for the space now occupied by the Pacific Weather Central, (ii) It was determined that the encroachment of buildings and hangars, and the increase in noise levels will make the present site less suitable, possibly unacceptable, (iii) It is the policy of the Atmospheric Environment Service to locate major components in DOE Environment Centres as they are built across Canada when possible.
2.	Seventy-nine per cent of the staff live south of 41 Avenue; 51 per cent south of the Fraser River. Studies are under way to assess the time and financial penalties which will be brought about as a result of the proposed change of work site. When these studies have defined the problem, the government is prepared to examine measures to alleviate any undue hardships which become apparent.
3.	Present government regulations do not provide reimbursement for employees whose place of work is moved within a metropolitan area.


Mr. Reynolds: Did the Task Force Report on a Pacific Environment Centre indicate that the proposed Environment Centre will contain a public education display in order to attract visitors, tourists and school children on a regular scheduled basis, as well as influential visitors from the International Community concerned with matters of the environment and has the government considered the impact of the image that will be projected by having a proposed centre located near a dirty polluted heavy industrial area?


Bill Rompkey: Yes, the Centre will set an example of good environmental management for surrounding activities. The site is large enough to permit development as a successful functional complex and as an attractive site for visitors.


Mr. Reynolds: Is the proposed Pacific Environment Centre to proceed at the North Shore location and, if so, on what date will construction commence?

July 25, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Bill Rompkey: Yes, negotiations to acquire the property are proceeding. As soon as the property is acquired, site investigation, detailed planning and design of the complex, preparation and approval of drawings and calls for tender would be followed by beginning of construction. It is estimated that construction could begin approximately 18 months after the site becomes available.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the fisheries research expenditures in the Rivers Inlet/Owikeno Lake area of British Columbia for the past five years?
2.	What was the purpose of this research?
3.	Is this research being actively pursued at present?
4.	Have any of the initial research objectives been completed and, if so, which ones?


Bill Rompkey: 1. Fisheries and Marine Service expenditures in the Rivers Inlet/Owikeno Lake area of British Columbia total $345,000 for the period 1969-73.
2.	The purpose of this research is salmon management studies and logging impact studies.
3.	The salmon management studies are continuing at present. The logging impact studies have been transferred to Carnation Creek, Babine Lake, Lake Lakelse and Slim Creek.
4.	Initial research objectives that have been completed are: (a) Determination that no significant trends exist in age composition, size or sex ratio of the sockeye salmon taken in the commercial catch; (b) Determination that Rivers Inlet sockeye salmon can be distinguished from those of Smith Inlet by physical parameters; (c) Determination that it is not possible to show any significant difference in timing of stocks to Owikeno Lake; (d) Determination that there is a positive correlation between smolt abundance and resultant adult returns which offers promise for prediction of total returns; (e) Determination that the optimum escapement appears to be 500,000 adults, (sockeye); (f) Determination that early catches can no longer be used as an indication of stock abundance.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was Mr. Zavie Levine appointed Executive Assistant to the Solicitor General?
2.	What previous positions did Mr. Levine hold with the government and what were the specific periods of time that he held such positions?
3.	Does Mr. Levine have access to all files of any nature whatsoever maintained by the Department of the Solicitor General or maintained by any entities under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Solicitor General?
4.	In the course of his duties does Mr. Levine at any time have access to files or documents of a classified nature pertaining to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or to the Police and Security Planning Analysis Group?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. December 1, 1972.
2. Special Assistant to the Minister of Labour: September 8, 1971 to January 25, 1972.
3	and 4. Special Assistant to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration: January 26, 1972 to November 27, 1972. It is not considered to be in the public interest to provide information as to who does and who does not have access to classified information of the government of Canada.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Were tenders called for the installlation of the STOLport at Rockcliffe and, if so, who submitted bids and in what amount?
2.	Have contracts or tenders been called for the terminal buildings and, if so, on what date will they be awarded?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes. Francon, Division of Canfarge Ltd., Ottawa, $603,428.75; Dibblee Construction Co. Ltd., Ottawa, $612,299.00; H. J. McFarland Construction Co. Ltd., Ottawa, $637,364.95.
2. Yes. Contract awarded July 10, 1973, to the lowest tenderer.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Were tenders called for the installation of the STOLport at Montreal and, if so, who submitted bids and in what amount?
2.	Have contracts or tenders been called for the terminal buildings and, if so, on what date will they be awarded?


Jean Marchand: 1. Yes. Miron Company Ltd., Montreal, $1,593,975.13; Francon, Div. of Canfarge Ltd., Montreal, $1,650,656.40; Desourdy Construction Ltd., Saint Hubert, P.Q., $2,629,012.25.
2. Yes. The date of award is indefinite. The Ministry is awaiting the authority of Treasury Board to enter contract.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw): Have any companies in the Province of Saskatchewan who received DREE grants in either 1971 ro 1972 declared bankruptcy or discontinued operations since receiving the grant and, if so, what are the names of the companies and the amount of the grants paid to each?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, the following two companies ceased operations or were declared bankrupt, after receiving payment, during the control period stipulated under the respective legislation. This Department does not review the operations of applicants beyond the control period. Under the Area Development Incentives Act, Premier Feed Co. Ltd., North Batt-leford, ceased operations due to fire. Amount paid is $37,622. Under the Regional Development Incentives Act, West-Core Steel Limited, Saskatoon, Bankruptcy. Amount paid is $78,880.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Knight: 1.	What were the names of full-time employees in each federal department, departmental corporation, agency corporation and proprietary corporation, whose headquarters were in Canada and who, in the fiscal year 1971-72, travelled outside of Canada and submitted their travel expenses?
2.	In each case, what were the amounts of travel expenses, what were the destinations and what were the salary ranges to these employees?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers Nos. 232 and 233 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION RELATING TO &quot;TRAVETAL&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 232-Mr. Olaussen:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents between the government, or any agency or branch thereof and the Halifax local of the International Longshoremen's Association since January 1, 1973 relating to the Motor Vessel Travetal.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 233-Mr. Olaussen:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents between the government or any agency or branch thereof and the owners of the Motor Vessel Travetal since January 1, 1973, relating to the Travetal.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 234 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT OF NOVA SCOTIA RELATING TO &quot;TRAVETAL&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 234-Mr. Olaussen:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all
Motions for Papers
correspondence, telegrams and other documents between the government or any agency or branch thereof and the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia or any agency or branch thereof, since January 1, 1973 relating to the Motor Vessel Travetal.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 226 and 236.



COPIES OF REPORTS BY MCKINSEY CONSULTANTS LIMITED FOR AIR CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 226-Mr. McKenzie:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of reports of all consultant work done by McKinsey Consultants Limited for Air Canada.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, these reports are considered privileged and should not be made public on the grounds that they relate to matters pertaining to the internal operation of the company. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. McKenzie:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



JOHNSTON TERMINALS LTD.-COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO AWARDING OF CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 236-Mr. Leggatt:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, studies, memoranda, etc. relating to the awarding of the contract to Johnston Terminals Ltd., for the operation of cranes and warehousing on the Surrey-Fraser Docks between the Department of Transport and (a) Johnston Terminals Ltd. (b) the Fraser River Harbour Commission (c) any firms interested in the contract.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for New Westminster.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there has been no correspondence, studies, memoranda, etc. between the Department of Transport and (a) Johnston Terminals Ltd.; (b) the Fraser River Harbour Commission and (c) any firms interested in the contract, and I would therefore ask that the motion be withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If "nobody has written to nobody" I guess we had better drop it.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other notices of motion be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
5964

July 25, 1973
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Inasmuch as the Acting Prime Minister now considers the TAPS line and the associated tanker system no longer simply hypothetical matters, can he tell the House what information this government has acquired from the government of the United States as to how much Alaskan oil in terms of barrels per day or barrels per week will be moved through the Straits of Juan de Fuca?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not have before me now the quantities, but I think it is relative to the position we have been establishing with the United States administration that it is only a very small proportion of the oil that will be moving from Alaska to the mainland United States. I have heard figures of around 10 per cent, so that if the tankers were to bypass Juan de Fuca, as we would like them to, it would not have any over-all effect of any significance for the project which could proceed without any damage or danger to the Canadian environment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. What moves does the Secretary of State for External Affairs intend to take to get some firm information on this? I presume, since he is talking about only starting to fight, he intends to offer some unambiguous and possibly attractive alternatives to the Americans in this connection. In relation to supplies of crude for American refineries in the Puget Sound area, what is the Canadian government offering by way of firm guarantees with regard to deliveries of Canadian crude overland to those refineries as an alternative to them being supplied by sea through the Straits of Juan de Fuca? Has the government of Canada made a firm commitment and if so, for how much?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is we have not yet done that. I think it would be logical that if we were to expect that this refinery is to be supplied from inland rather than from tankers entering the narrow waters of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, that we would have to enter into some agreements with the United States that would not expose that refinery to the possibility of being unable to operate.


SUGGESTED STUDY OF CANADIAN CAPABILITY TO SUPPLY CHERRY POINT REFINERY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: further supplementary. No commitment having been made, no such assurance having been given by the government of Canada clearly from what the Acting Prime Minister has just said, has the government of Canada ordered any special study on Canadian preparedness or capability of supplying American refineries in the Puget Sound area

as an alternative to this oil coming in through the Straits of Juan de Fuca? Has any study been definitely commissioned to date?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it has been from the beginning the position of the Canadian government that the Cherry Point refinery can be and should be supplied from inland. We have done some studies, if that is what the Leader of the Opposition wants to call them. The Department of the Environment has been looking at this question very carefully and it is on the basis of the information that we have that I am saying the refinery can be and should be supplied from the interior.


POSSIBILITY OF SUPPLYING CHERRY POINT REFINERY FROM CANADIAN SOURCES-SUGGESTION CANADA MAKE UNITED STATES AWARE OF POSITION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of the Interior Morton in his letter of May 11, 1972, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated that the capacity of the Alaskan pipeline would be 2 million barrels per day and the amount entering Puget Sound would be only 190,000 barrels per day, or some 10 per cent, I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government intends immediately to open up negotiations with the government of the United States, to ensure that this small amount of oil can be supplied by overland routes, so that we shall not endanger the ecology and the good relationships between our countries for the sake of a comparatively small amount of oil?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the hon. member supporting the government's position, both on the dimensions of the problem and on the way in which we can avoid the possibility of serious damage to the environment. As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, since this is the position we are taking, of course we will have negotiations of this kind. Now that there is a possibility of the TAPS line being built, the negotiations will have to proceed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If this is the government's position, why has it not been communicated to the government of the United States? And, if it has not been communicated to the government of the United States, is it the intention of the Canadian government to communicate it to that government at an early date and also to make a public statement, so that the senators and congressmen of the United States will be aware of it, because it is apparent from the discussions which we held with them yesterday that some of them are of the opinion that their state department has not given them full information relating to communications between the two governments.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this has been the position we have taken with the United States government from the beginning. We have always insisted that the Cherry Point refinery, which is now being supplied from the interior, can be fully supplied in that way in the future. However, I say to my hon. friends opposite that if we want to negoti-
July 25, 1973

ate and be successful, we do not give away our cards at the beginning.


Mr. Hees:: What cards? The Joker?
[ Transla tion]


MEETING BETWEEN CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since the meeting held yesterday in Washington between Canadian and American parliamentarians seems to have created more confusion than understanding, does the minister intend to report to the House on what exactly has been discussed in Washington and tell us what Canada's position will be in these circumstances?
| Eng]ish\


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, of course I cannot answer for the group of parliamentarians who went to Washington. They went without instructions from the government and they will not report to us. They will report, presumably, to the members of parliament. But I am very happy, from what I hear from members on all sides, to learn that it was a most useful delegation. It promoted understanding between our two countries and that, of course, was its purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West on a supplementary. I appreciate that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton also wishes to ask a supplementary. Perhaps we might complete the first round of questioning, and then return to supplementaries. However, before doing this I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.


INQUIRY AS TO DISPOSITION OF CANADIAN OIL NOW GOING TO CHERRY POINT REFINERY
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is this: As the Cherry Point Refinery complex is supplied essentially from western Canada by inland pipe line, has the government considered making representations to the United States as to the disposition of that particular quantity of oil that is now going there; or, does the government anticipate that the Canadian domestic market will absorb the equivalent quantity, or is the whole system to go down the drain?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it ought to be one of the objectives of Canadian policy to retain that rich oil market in the northwestern United States for Canada.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister had an opportunity to look into complaints about the attachment of bank accounts of people who have been overpaid unemployment insurance benefits and are in arrears? Has this happened once, several times, or is it a regular practice?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have been able to ascertain that this flows from the authority given the UIC under the act. However, I have suspended this approach until a total examination is possible. I am awaiting a thorough report on it. I can only confirm those two actions at this stage.


ALLEGATION INCOME TAX INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO COMMISSION
David Orlikow: Can the minister comment on the claims that arrangements have been worked out between his department and the Department of National Revenue whereby income tax information which is given to the Department of National Revenue is being made available to his department?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this question as notice. I will endeavour to obtain the information to see if I can advise the hon. member shortly.
[ Translation]


ALLEGED GARNISHEEING OF SALARY TO COMPENSATE FOR OVERPAYMENT-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration inform the House whether it is usual for persons who once collected unemployment insurance benefits to have their salaries garnisheed by the commission as compensation for unemployment insurance overpayments?
[ English]


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this authority is given to the Unemployment Insurance Commission under the act. In fact, the commission is required to collect overpayments. I can say there have been situations when third party attachments have been exercised, but generally speaking it is the instruction of the commission to negotiate with these people who have received overpayments in order to try to work out a reasonable program of repayment that does not embarrass them too much. However, there have been some occasions where garnishee orders have been issued.
26454-13?

July 25, 1973
Oral Questions


BENEFIT CONTROL-EFFECTIVENESS OF MEASURES IN VIEW OF SMALL DROP IN PAYMENTS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that Unemployment Insurance Commission payments dropped to $179 million in May from $186 million a year earlier and this drop is only the second year-to-year decline in more than six years, is the minister satisfied this drop is sufficient considering the fact the commission has had an all-out program to rectify excessive deficits?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the measures we took to ensure those people receiving benefits were in fact entitled to them are working reasonably well. There are still some rough spots. This is a very complex matter. The reason payments remained at the level they did is related to the maturity of the plan; better information about the plan now exists in this country compared to a year ago. This could be a subject of considerable examination, perhaps in committee, at an early stage in order to get all the details placed before hon. members.
[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can the minister tell this House whether the amounts allocated to Quebec for economic expansion in 1973 are as large as in 1972?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that a question of that nature could be placed on the order paper. If the minister or someone who can answer for him has the information and can tell the House, of course, I can see no objection.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has been very vigorously opposing the movement of oil by tanker through the Straits of Juan de Fuca for a period of some two years. I, personally, have made many representations to the United States Secretary of State. What I said yesterday, I say again today: members on the other side of the House are taking a defeatist attitude toward this problem, but we are only beginning to fight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker:: Can the minister tell the House how he intends to carry out this fight against the movement of the oil through the narrow Straits of Juan de Fuca and, second, how the government intends to overcome the disadvantage which results from its reluctance to begin this fight earlier?


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-VISIT OF PARLIAMENTARIANS TO WASHINGTON FOR DISCUSSIONS-REQUEST FOR DAY TO DEBATE FINDINGS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: In view of the hon. gentleman's suggestion a little while ago that members of this House and the other place who were in Washington might wish to report on their visit, would the Acting Prime Minister discuss with the government House leader the setting aside of a day so that there may be a debate in this House and consideration of a report as to the information they acquired from the United States congressmen regarding the extent of the government's failure to do anything at the appropriate time?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it might be very useful. I have heard some of these reports about the talks that went on. I think it was a very useful exchange. A report which was full and not biased, as was the one given by the hon. member, might well be considered after the capital punishment bill has been approved, when I think we should set a day aside.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* *
*
* *
*


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-REASON FOR DELAY IN CANADIAN PROTEST
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the minister's statements in the House yesterday and a few moments ago that the government has now decided to fight for the environmental rights of Canadians in British Columbia, can he inform the House when the government decided to wait until the United States Senate approved the TAPS line before starting this fight against TAPS and the Cherry Point terminal and whether this decision was made with the approval of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet?


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the second report of the special committee on trends in food prices which was tabled today underlines the need for the Food Prices Review Board to adhere to its terms of reference respecting investigations, monitoring prices and studying developments in other countries, and to refrain from setting itself up solely as an educational agency, would the minister advise the House whether he is prepared to issue specific instructions along these lines to the chairman of the board, Mrs. Plumptre?
July 25, 1973


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The Board which has been set up is independent of the government. I trust it will be as aware of its terms of reference as are members of this House.


Ronald George Atkey: Has the minister issued any instructions to Mrs. Plumptre concerning a price and incomes freeze, a subject on which she has very decided views which may preclude her and the board from taking any objective action in the matter?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have issued no such instructions. It would be inconsistent with the terms of reference of the board. However, I do recall her saying that the board would approach the subject with an open mind.


PENITENTIARIES
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Solicitor General. In view of the peripatetic excursions of Harold Ballard, going in and out of penitentiaries at his pleasure, apparently, and the recent discovery that for seven months a tunnel was being constructed beneath the walls of the Prince Albert penitentiary from the outside without being suspected by the various penitentiary officials who have visited that institution, would the minister agree that consideration should now be given to the setting up of a commission to look into the penitentiary situation across the country?


William Warren Allmand: Yesterday the penitentiary authorities found that a tunnel was being dug by certain inmates in the Prince Albert minimum security prison-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: -from outside the walls of the Prince Albert maximum security institution. The two people involved were transferred to maximum security and an inquiry is continuing.


Mr. Fairweather:: No OFY or LIP grant?


William Warren Allmand: I might say that there are several inquiries going on at the present. There is the committee set up by this House to look into conditions in penitentiaries and, as I said about a week ago, I hope it will visit the west to look into conditions there as well.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister is slightly in error, because it was eight days ago that dogs looking for illicit liquor among the prisoners made the discovery of the 35-foot tunnel.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: Under all the circumstances, I should like to ask the minister whether he would explain why it was that these various officials including the head of the department, who was in Prince Albert to look into the institution, had not been able to discover this very large tunnel, a fine architectural piece of work I am told, and why it is that in that institution the situation today is that there are 28 fewer custodial officers than there should be? Will he explain how this unusual occurrence took place, because in another month or so the prisoners could have walked out?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in the report I have now there is no indication as to how the tunnel was found, but it was found. If it was found with the help of dogs, I think that is to the credit of the penitentiaries service.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: It is precisely for this reason we have dogs in our penitentiaries service.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: With respect to the charge made by the hon. member regarding certain custodial officers, I will have to check into that. I have no information whatsoever that there are 28 officers short, but I am surprised to hear it. I will check into it and report back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the right hon. member on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Greenwood.


John George Diefenbaker: I would not like any "doggone" false information to go out, but those dogs were not in the penitentiary service.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ La ter:]


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert which I address to the Solicitor General. In view of the lush conditions existing in our penitentiaries as described by Mr. Harold Ballard, and as this appears to be the only institution in which you can get a steak dinner at a reasonable cost, would the Solicitor General ask those in his department who are investigating this tunnelling operation outside the Prince Albert institution to ascertain whether those who conducted it had in mind helping people to get out of the institution or to get in?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 25, 1973
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


VIET NAM - ALLEGED DETENTION OF CIVILIAN PRISONERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who announced yesterday that Canada proposes to set up an embassy in Saigon. What action, if any, is Canada taking in respect of well authenticated reports that the regime in question is detaining tens of thousands of political prisoners under inhuman conditions in contravention to the universal declaration of human rights?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about our attitude on human rights and about the opposition to the imprisonment of civil prisoners of this kind. I say to the hon. member that unless we do establish permanent diplomatic machinery in Saigon, and not have to depend upon the fact that we are a member of the International Control Commission, there will be no opportunity for us to enter into conversations with the government of Viet Nam on this question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Is the minister prepared to give an undertaking that if we do establish an embassy this question of the many thousands of political prisoners will in fact be one of its main concerns?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the main concern of any Canadian embassy abroad is to protect the interests of Canadians, but I can assure the hon. member that it will be paying attention to this question too.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for York Simcoe and return to this matter shortly.


MONTREAL OLYMPICS; 1976-MEETING OF PROVISOS


ENTERED BY CERTAIN PEOPLE IN QUEBEC BY PASSAGE OF BILL
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Would he tell the House whether his government has now received written assurances from the Prime Minister of Quebec, Mayor Drapeau and Commissioner Rousseau that the provisos set out in each of their letters tabled in this House February 2 have been met to each of their satisfactions upon passage of the Olympics bill which is now before us?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice. It seems to me to be a very complicated and precise question intended to elicit precise information. I will try to get it for the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Call in the dogs.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board with whom I believe the

Acting Prime Minister has been consulting. Would the minister indicate whether the government has received any written or oral assurances from the three I already referred to that the provisos in their earlier letters dated January 31 and February 1 have now been met, providing the summer Olympics bill is passed by this House?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the bill has not been passed we have no such formal assurances. However, I would undertake to get assurances from the letter writers that the provisos will have been met with the passage of the bill.


BROADCASTING
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. In view of the statement of the minister when he filed his green paper and met with ministers of communication on November 26 to negotiate on the question of the jurisdiction over cablevision, would he please tell this House why he has authorized, or the CRTC has allowed a criminal information against Communicomp Data Ltd. on July 4 in respect of violations of the Broadcasting and Radio Acts, since this is open for negotiation?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. As long as the law remains unchanged, it must be respected. The CRTC believed that the Broadcasting Act had been violated, while the Department of Communications felt that the Radio Broadcasting Act had been violated. That was why we undertook civil proceedings, at the same time as those who held a franchise for the territory invaded, illegally in our opinion, by Communicomp.


CABLEVISION-SUGGEST COLLUSION IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COMMUNICOMP DATA LTD.-POSSIBLE INTERVENTION OF MINISTER
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the strange coincidence of a criminal information being laid on July 4 and a civil proceeding being commenced on July 10, was there any collusion between the CRTC, the minister or the Department of Communications on the criminal aspects of this matter and the civil proceeding instituted by Keeble Cable Television Ltd ? Does the minister intend to intervene in the civil proceeding if the constitutionality of the Broadcasting Act is raised?
[ Transla tion]


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, as regards the hon. member's second and final questions, I would have to obtain the opinion of legal counsel before I could answer. As for the existence of collusion, there was none. Of course, everyone was aware
July 25, 1973


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What action does the government intend to take with regard to future atmospheric nuclear testing by France and other countries? Does the government intend to take any specific action that will be effective?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I only wish I knew the kind of action this parliament or this government could take that would end nuclear testing in the atmosphere. We do none of it and we have protested most strongly against China and France doing this testing. We hope that world opinion will convince them that it is not in the interests of humanity.
He He *


MANPOWER
Mr. Donald Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have some doubt as to whether this question should be addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or the Secretary of State, but I will try the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister aware of the submission to the Treasury Board for $150 million, presumably from the contingency fund, to launch a combined LIP and OFY program an a permanent basis?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not aware of such a submission, and I would be if it existed. So I can assure the hon. member that no decision leading to that has yet been taken.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the decision is taken, I wonder if the minister would announce the program in the House and whether it would be his intention-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that a supplementary question asked in those terms is obviously hypothetical.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


REQUEST YUGOSLAVIAN GYPSIES BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN CANADA-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister respond positively on humanitarian grounds to the appeal of the United Nations Association and other groups of individuals in this country so that the 45 Yugoslavian gypsies may remain in Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the case of the 45 or 47 gypsies, which has been the subject of some comment in the House, not all favourable, is now before the Immigration Appeal Board. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment further until I get more information.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Does the government, which acted with magnanimity toward refugees from Hungary, Tibet and later Uganda, not recognize the similar humanitarian aspect in this case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is an argument.
Hs H< Hs
[ Transla tion]


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Solicitor General acting for the Minister of Justice.
In view of the increasingly frequent use of the exceptional procedure which contempt of court constitutes, does the minister intend to recommend, as the present Prime Minister, among others, suggested ten years ago, amendments to the penal code designed to limit recourse to this archaic procedure and transfer from the accused to the Crown the onus of proof?


William Warren Allmand: 
COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister, also in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the social program for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference includes an invitation from the Prime Minister to Commonwealth

July 25, 1973
Oral Questions
prime ministers and their wives to a weekend at Mont Tremblant and that a similar invitation is being extended to visiting ministers and their wives by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would the minister take into consideration the fact that certain Commonwealth prime ministers are women, that certain cabinet ministers are women, and that invitations should include husbands or escorts as well as wives?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that admonition could have come from a better source.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports from the United Nations and from the Food and Agriculture Organization that 70 million people in Africa face the continued threat of death from thirst and starvation, and in view of the estimate that 50 planes are needed in July and August to distribute emergency supplies to these people, is Canada going to add to the several planes which, I understand, we have made available to help in this tragic situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can answer this question at the moment. We were the first with planes on the site, and, if I may say this, if other countries were to respond as we did, then there would be the required number. I cannot really answer the question. It may be that we may even step up the present effort.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask the
minister whether in addition to the three planes, I believe, which we are making available out of the 50 needed we are doing anything else to help those 70 million people?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are providing something like $7 million worth of food and we are also engaged in some projects to try to help settle the problem permanently and not just temporarily.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Having regard to the report that over 70 cases of leprosy have been discovered among recent immigrants to Canada in the last several months, have any new medical directives or regulations been issued to ensure that this does not happen in the future and, if not, why not?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have a very hazy knowledge of this matter which was brought to my attention only the other day and I have asked for a full report. Of course, it would involve the operations of the department under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of National Heath and Welfare. I can only say that we are aware of this and are looking into it.


YUGOSLAVIAN GYPSIES-POSSIBLE GRANTING OF WORK PERMITS PENDING HEARING OF APPEALS
Mr. Harold T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the gypsies be granted work permits while the investigation is pending?


Robert Knight Andras: As is the standard practice, these cases are before the Appeal Board. If it is proven that they require work permits, then permits will be granted. On that subject, it is interesting to note the compassionate view of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal which is in direct contrast to the admonitions and scoldings from opposition members I received a month or so ago, as well as questions as to why I was not exceeding my authority by issuing deportation orders for these people in the light of certain allegations of crimes which they were supposed to have committed at that time.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT UNITED STATES-CANADA GROUP TO STUDY POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who said yesterday that he and the secretary of state of the United States were discussing the possibility of setting up a group to look into the problem of damage to the environment. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the House what would be the relationship of this group to the group the Prime Minister said on February 16 had been established for that purpose also?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke to the U.S. secretary of state it was many, many months ago when we first raised this question with the United States. Subsequently, there were discussions between the Minister of the Environment and his counterpart in the United States. A group was established at that time to inquire into the environmental problems related to the movement of tankers through the Straits of Juan de Fuca.
Perhaps I should also say to the Leader of the Opposition that the matter of the movement of supertankers from Alaska down through the Straits of Juan de Fuca is not the only environmental risk. At present there are tankers moving into those narrow straits carrying oil and we do not feel that there are adequate measures taken as yet
July 25.1973

between Canada and the United States to deal with even the present risk. So altogether apart from what may happen to supertankers coming down from Alaska we have a problem at which we are looking.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the Secretary of State for External Affairs now says that the group has already been established and is at work, why did the Secretary of State for External Affairs say in the House yesterday that the U.S. secretary of state had spoken to him about the possibility of setting up the group to look at this problem? What impression was the Secretary of State for External Affairs trying to give?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Secretary of State for External Affairs was trying to remove the impression that had been created by the opposition that we had suddenly awakened to the problem.


FINANCE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of statements by certain financial institutions that the supply of funds for home mortgages is beginning to dwindle and will soon dampen the housing market, is the government considering making changes in the present monetary policies of the Bank of Canada and meeting with chartered banks to assure that adequate funds for housing are made available at moderate interest rates?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer this question for the Minister of Finance, except to say that he has been meeting with the governor of the Bank of Canada on a regular basis and from time to time has had discussions with chartered banks. I do not think anyone has been more diligent on behalf of the needs of the Canadian community.


Gerald William Baldwin: And less successful.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Athabasca. There are only two or three minutes left before the end of the question period and perhaps we should have as few supplementary questions as possible.


Paul Yewchuk: In view of the fact that 9.75 per cent of 10 per cent mortgage interest rates have resulted from government policies, is it the position of the minister that such mortgage interest rates are in the over-all interest of the economy, and that restricted funds for housing are appropriate at this time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, all I would point out is that we are having a record volume of housing starts in 1973,
Oral Questions
which seems to indicate that at least we have a fairly adequate volume of mortgage funds.


HARBOURS
Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises out of the announcement by the government concerning the port of Churchill. In view of the urgent need for development of the port of Churchill, and in view of the recommendations of the National Harbours Board and of a committee of this House, would he advise why the government considers it necessary to have further studies undertaken at this time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will refer this question to the appropriate minister.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Ambassador Michel Gauvin is to continue his career in Greece is it the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to instruct the ambassador to continue his openmouth policy in that country?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he is able to report any progress in the new talks between the railways and the non-operating unions, and perhaps you might permit me to ask him what progress has been made to bring about a settlement in the dispute between the machinists and CP Air?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the CP Air dispute we have advised the parties that mediation services are available. We hope they take advantage of them.
With regard to the railway dispute, I am advised that Mr. Kelly is meeting with the parties now.
5972

July 25, 1973
Oral Questions


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the reported purchase of stock in Texas Gulf by the so-called Canada Development Corporation, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the House if this purchase indicates a change in policy by the corporation, moving away from what we felt was its intended purpose of increasing Canadian participation on our own economy?
Kon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer this question on behalf of the Acting Prime Minister. I think this proposed purchase does not indicate a change in policy, and is quite in line with the statement of objectives announced for the corporation by Mr. Benson in 1971, when he said the acquisition policy should "emphasize areas involving the development and application of new technology, those which involve the exploitation and utilization of Canadian natural resources, those which have special relevance to the development of the north-[DOT]"


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the minister might want to return to motions to make this statement. We are reaching the end of the question period. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Scarborough East on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and will have to call orders of the day thereafter.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, in light of the direction you gave the minister with respect to returning to motions, would he agree to make a statement on motions, when this matter might be more fully discussed by the House?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will look at that to see whether a statement on motions is needed, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs I would like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In light of the fact that many new homeowners across Canada are experiencing such problems as roofs and shingles blowing off, chimneys and walls collapsing, and basement walls and floors cracking, would the minister consider revising the national building code to improve standards for residential construction? Also would he investigate whether the CMHC and builders are carrying out proper inspections?


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister. If

he would like to bring to my attention or to the minister's attention the particular cases he is referring to, we will make sure that CMHC takes a look at them.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and I will not take up much of the time of the House. I am not quite certain to whom I should direct this question, and so I shall direct it to you, Sir, and perhaps you can give me some guidance. It relates to the protective staff in this House, for whom I believe all hon. members have a great deal of respect. It has to do with their uniforms. For some time it has caused me a great deal of concern to see people associated with this excellent service wearing what I consider to be a rather out-dated type of uniform in the hot, humid weather of Ottawa during the summer months. Whoever is responsible for determining the decorum of this service should find a way to ensure that the members of the protective staff have a sensible type of uniform for the humid weather.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-196, respecting the 1976 Olympic Games, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[ English]
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this bill was given considerable attention in committee, both by members of the standing committee and by other interested members of the House. As an observer at the committee meetings, I am of the opinion that a great disservice will be done to the Canadian people by passing this legislation.
I am not at all sure of the ramifications of the lottery or of the postage issues. I am inclined to believe the public will show considerable interest in buying postage stamps, costing an additional two cents, for mail to be sent from the Olympic site during the Olympic games in 1976. However, I view with great reluctance the provision in the bill with regard to coinage.
July 25, 1973

It is proposed that a major part of the financing of the games be undertaken by issuing a new type of coinage in denominations of $5 and $10. These will be packaged in a number of ways. There will be proof sets, souvenir package sets and sets containing all the additional silver coin denominations. The market for coinage and commemorative monetary tokens have grown over the years, particularly during the last ten years, to the extent that many organizations use the minting of coinage and medallions to assist in financing their operations. This has been particularly true in Canada since 1967 when most cities across this country put out a medallion-which may or may not have contained silver-to commemorate, in effect, a particular event in their area. There is no question that this market has grown and in Canada we now have two or three mints producing medallions.
It is also true, Mr. Speaker, that in the minting of coinage Canada has been able to expand its operation to a considerable degree. Only a few years ago we were asking the United States government to mint our ten-cent coins because we did not have the capacity to do so. I am pleased to see that the Mint has been expanded and has achieved a degree of expertise in the development of coinage so that we are now producing silver and metal currency for 20 countries. This is a credit to the Canadian Mint and to our ability to meet the growing need for currency.
With regard to developing coins in Canada, I am told that since confederation we have minted in total $317 million. Mr. Speaker, $317 million in silver currency is not a very large amount, but it has been sufficient to meet our needs for the past 100 years. Now we are being asked by Mayor Drapeau and by COJO to allow the minting of approximately $450 million of new currency. This is not a medallion but a piece of currency that can be used in trade by Canadians, that is legal tender and can be used in financial transactions within our country. It is, in fact, the issuing of more coinage currency than we have used in this country for the past 100 years.
Mr. Speaker, for hundreds of years medallions have been issued to commemorate the holding of the Olympic games. Only relatively recently countries have asked for the production of tenderable currency that could be used for the promotion of the Olympic games. In Canada in the past ten years, we have experienced with the development of commemorative coins and these have received considerable support from the public and Canadian coin collectors. A limited number have been bought by coin dealers in other countries as well.
It is interesting to note that little has been said about the fact that most countries prohibit the importation of another country's coinage. It is interesting to note, too, that in 1967, when for the first time in many years we included in our centennial sets a $20 gold piece, this coin could not legally be purchased even by numismatic organizations in the United States. The United States had laws that prevented its importation, therefore, coin dealers in that country were prohibited from buying our centennial sets containing the $20 gold piece.
Mr. Speaker, during the year that we celebrated our one hundredth birthday we had as large a market as we have
Olympic Bill
ever had for coin sets produced in Canada. During that period we produced and sold to the buying public in Canada and across the world slightly less than three million commemorative coins. This involved the $1 coin, the coin sets that ranged from a penny to $1 and the special presentation sets. The latter included the coin in which I am very proud to have played a considerable role leading to its production by persuading, over the years, three different finance ministers to allow it to be minted. I refer to the $20 gold coin that became the highlight of the coinage presentation sets put out in 1967.
In 1967, Mr. Speaker, we sold slightly less than three million sets. Now we are being asked by COJO to put out in stages legal tender to the extent of 65 million coins. To me this means that unless everybody in this country decides to keep coinage there will not be the number of collections that will dispose of 65 millions pieces. In effect, this would mean, if we were to sell the currency within this country, that every man, woman and child would end up with at least $20 worth of commemorative coinage to make up the $450 million issued. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that many people in this country have little interest in carrying around $5 or $10 silver pieces. Anyone who has studied this situation is aware that there is no possibility of our putting out $450 million worth of commemorative coinage and having it bought by collectors. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, how do we expect to dispose of it?
I listened to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) indicate that consideration had been given to methods of disposing of the coinage. We are aware that in this bill we are establishing an account for the Olympics committee that will allow the minting of this coinage in batches, starting in 1974, and that this account will be debited and credited, as the case may be, for the coinage that is bought. This is almost the system that was used in Germany. In the heat of national pride, the West German government decided to mint and print a very large commemorative issue. Most of this issue was handled through the German banks. Mr. Speaker, almost 50 per cent of that coinage is still sitting in the banks that bought it for national reasons, and they are now asking the government to buy it back.
It costs approximately 30 cents to make a $5 or $10 silver coin. These are not necessarily what they call proof sets, but are proof-like coinage. As I understand it, a proof set is struck with special dyes and is struck for a second time to give it a very clear image. The coinage we are speaking about will not be proof coinage but will be proof-like. It will be in a container. What will happen? Pressure will be applied in Montreal, where they are not above blackmailing the people of Canada, the federal government and even their own people. I am sure that at the height of their enthusiasm the authorities there will exhort the companies, various offices and entities such as our national banks to buy, buy, buy and, hopefully, dispose of the coins at a later date.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I am not sure whether my point is a question of privilege. I do not think the hon. gentleman really wishes to accuse the National Assembly or the council of the city of Montreal of engaging in blackmail.
5974

July 25, 1973
Olympic Bill


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, they have blackmailed us a number of times. I can think of two instances. The mayor of Montreal blackmailed us in the matter of the War Measures Act, and he blackmailed us into the centennial celebrations for which this parliament picked up much of the tab. Nobody objected particularly. Perhaps I should not use the word "blackmail" but I leave that connotation. I define blackmail as the use of strong methods to persuade people, perhaps for many good reasons, to do things they do not want to do. They do those things because they fear the consequences of not doing them.
I would not be surprised if the workers in Montreal go home with coinage in their pay packets as part payment for their work. They can take the coins out of the plastic wrapper and use them, or take them to the banks and get dollar bills for them. This will happen: it will have to happen, for the Olympic committee wants to raise something like $200 million. I suggest that the government will be less than honest with the country if it does not retain control of the minting of the coinage. The coinage should be sold and should not be dealt with as if one is operating a concession. It should be pruchased.
In 1967 the Mint struck centennial coinage. You sent in your order with the money, the Mint accepted the order and filled it later. It limited the number of coins which could be issued to one individual. Each package of coins had a face value of $1.91 but was sold for $3. Obviously, if too many packages were sold they would lose their value as collectors' pieces, so sales were retricted. The collector paid $3 for coins with a face value of $1.91, and the seigniorage on each sale was approximately $1.09. That nice profit accrued to the Canadian Mint. The Mint was reaslistic in issuing those coins. If you are asking $3 for $1.91 worth of coins, the coins must be collectors' items. If they are not collectors' items worth more than the face value of the coins, why would anybody be idiot enough to pay $3 for $1.91 worth of coins?


An hon. Member:: A Liberal might be.


William Arnold Peters: The Liberals might do that. They seem to have adopted Social Credit ideas in this particular piece of legislation, because they are almost going to make money out of thin air. Obviously, if the Mint had said that it would issue more than so many sets of proof-like coin, each package of coins would have been worth $1.91 and not $3. Therefore, only by making such coins scarce could they be valuable as collectors' items.
That will not happen with the Olympic coins. We are talking about putting out coins that will be worth just about what you pay for them. Presumably, you could take them to the grocery store and spend them. As well, we are prepared under this program to put out more coinage than we have put out in our history as a nation, and we will do this in a period of two years.
The Americans steal our coins and melt them down. They make a profit on our coins because a number of them are made of silver. I remember when the little five-cent piece was worth more than ten cents on the silver market. Melted down, it was 90 per cent pure silver which was worth more than ten cents on the silver market. The Americans have been melting down our coins during the last six months. We have put out debased coinage to

prevent a considerable capital loss occurring to this country through the carrying away and melting down of our silver coins.
Apparently it will cost $2 to produce a $5 coin. The seigniorage on that sale will be about $3, less the 30 cents cost involved in the manufacture of each coin. Therefore, the seigniorage on each coin will be greater than the basic cost of the coin. One might call that the basic value. If silver does what gold has done in the last year, the advantage in the long run will accrue to the government. On the other hand, it may accrue io the collectors, or even to the United States government which seems to be smarter in this field than we are.
Why do I say that? If silver prices double, it may be more advantageous to melt down our new coins and turn them into silver bullion. Of course, I am speculating. The fact is that if we are putting out this amount of currency, the minting of it should be under the control of the government, of the Minister of Finance. It should not be under the control of an agency which will not sell the coins as currency but as medallions, and will receive about $3 profit per coin. The agencies will sell these coins regardless of the disruption in our system of coinage that may result.
I believe we were pushed into the Olympics. 1 am opposed to cities having any say about the Olympics in this day and age. We are not city states; we are nations. I have some knowledge of how the Olympics began. The cities of Carthage, Athens and Sparta competed against each other. Some of my colleagues may remember it, but I have no personal knowledge. These were city states. We no longer have city states. It is not to anyone's advantage to allow cities to hold the Olympics. Montreal is not alone; there are also the cases of Denver, Vancouver and Munich.
It is a fact that once the Olympics are awarded, they do not belong to the particular city but to the country. There is an obligation on the country to be responsible for them. Canada should be the most of the Olympics, not the city of Montreal. Representatives from Montreal see millions and millions of dollars being spent on a two-week show. That money should be spent on the development of parks, housing and sewage disposal. I question the priorities of some of the representatives of the city of Montreal.
Be that as it may, it is a fact that young people in every community from coast to coast are deprived of training facilities to prepare them to compete in international athletic competitions. They do not have a decent rink, pool, stadium or track. They do not have the elementary facilities for basic training which a nation as well off as Canada should expect of every community in this country. If we have this kind of money to spend, we should ensure that all communities have the facilities to develop amateur athletes.
We do not have an Olympic-size pool in northern Ontario. I remember a young fellow from Matheson. He learned to swim in the Black River, which is not very large. He did not have any professional training. He came third in at least two major events at the Canadian National Exhibition. Some of the best athletes in North America
July 25, 1973

competed in those events. He came from an earea which was not able to provide proper training facilities.
The town of Schumacher received the gift of a skating rink with artificial ice from McIntyre Mines long before most other communities had such a facility. We were able to train people like Barbara Ann Scott who went on to become the world figure skating champion. Most other figure skaters in North America trained in Schumacher, near Timmins: it was the only Olympic-size rink with full facilities which operated during the summer. We can expect great things from ordinary communities in Canada if we provide the basic requirements. If this government has the kind of money that is needed to provide a two-week international show, surely it should be able to help some of these communities.
I think the Olympics is all very nice; I sincerely believe that. However, I believe it will be a black mark against Canada if the people who compete in the Olympics are not provided with accommodation and the necessary facilities. This government should not have been tricked by Mr. Drapeau and Mr. Bourassa.
We should not have been tricked by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, in his overzealous assessment of the results of the last election, made it very clear that if the Olympics were to be held in Canada the taxpayers would not have to pay for it. We will have to pay for the Olympics. The Prime Minister will not be here, because the cost will not be known until 1978. Some of us will still be here. We will have to raise the money from the taxpayers to pay the debt incurred by the Olympics. I suggest it would be more honest for us to participate in the Olympics as a government. We should decide what the Olympics are to cost and put up the money.
It is unfortunate we do not have any say about where the Olympic events will be held. Some events should be held in Quebec City and Three Rivers. Kingston will be used to some extent. I do not think Ottawa and Toronto are too far away. Some of the events could be held in northern Quebec and northern Ontario. However, that could only come about if we were part of COJO, and we are not. I suggest that in the end we will have to put up the money.
Of all the hair-brained schemes Mayor Drapeau has dreamed up in the past, this one of selling the amount of currency he anticipates is probably the most unrealistic. If this were a medallion, I would not care.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Will the hon. member explain whether he is in fact speaking for his party, or was the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) speaking for his party on February 2 when he said:
-my party welcomes the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today in which he took some trouble to outline the parameters of federal involvement in Canada's first Olympic games. We wish our first Olympic games every possible success as a potentially great moment in the history of our nation.
-my party approves the concept of the issuing of special coins and stamps.
Olympic Bill


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I see little contradiction in those remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member who asked the question should be able to answer it better than I can. A number of years ago he appeared before the same committee asking for a charter for a bank. Obviously he knows something about the banking industry. What I am objecting to is the fact that we are going to issue more currency in a two-year period than we have in the whole history of this nation. That is wrong. It is not possible nor feasible. It is certainly not the way to finance the Olympics. If this were a medallion, I would be in favour of Montreal, COJO or anyone else issuing as many as they want.
I have never questioned the right of the city of Cobalt to put out silver medallions every time they can find some occasion to justify doing so. Those medallions are worth as much in silver as the price at which they are sold, so no one can lose on that kind of proposition. But I maintain it is irresponsible to put out this quantity of currency and expect there will be no repercussions on our monetary system. In the second place, it is a hell of a way to finance a national event.
I welcomed the statement by the Prime Minister that no money was to be spent by Ottawa on the Olympics. To be frank, I did not think the Olympics would go ahead in Montreal. I did not think the people of Montreal would tolerate the levels of expenditure which were contemplated. Now, two years before the event is to take place, with the arrangements well under way, I find myself unable to credit the Prime Minister's statement that we are not going to pay. I think we are. I think the Quebec provincial government is going to pay, too, though I do not know how much, and I do not know how. I feel we are being offered an impossible proposition, and that if carried to fruition it will be a disaster for our currency. I believe it is not a proper way to finance the operation.
If we are determined to put our currency in the form of collectors' items, the Mint must control its issue and make all decisions as to the quantity involved, and so on, as has been the case whenever commemorative coins have been minted in the past. Unless this is done, we shall be acting irresponsibly. For these reasons, I move:
That Bill C-196 be not now read a third time but be read this day six months hence.
My motion is seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert).


Mr. Rose:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) on a question of privilege.


Mr. Jelinek:: On a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: A question of privilege takes precedence over a point of order, as the hon. member should know. That is why the Speaker recognized me. My name was taken in vain by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)

July 25, 1973
Olympic Bill
in connection with a position I took in February on the subject before us. In my speech of June 28-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lianiel):: Order. If the hon. member wishes to clarify a speech he made at another stage of this bill, he can do so by taking part in the debate. I do not think the point he is raising can be considered to be a question of privilege. He has to show that his privilege as a member of parliament has been affected.


Some hon. Members:: No privilege.


Mark Willson Rose: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Paproski:: There is no question of privilege.


Mark Willson Rose: I think I should have an opportunity to put forward my question of privilege. I am saying that the hon. member for York-Simcoe made an assertion about me-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Apparently the hon. member is alone in believing he has a question of privilege. Neither his colleagues nor the Chair can accept what he is saying as being a question of privilege. He is just making an argument which he can advance on a later occasion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have had some consultation with the House leaders of the other parties and, based on their agreement, I am proposing that we revert to motions at four o'clock or thereabouts to allow the Acting Prime Minister an opportunity to make a statement. This would be followed, possibly, by comments from the leaders of the other parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion put forward by the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Is it agreed that we revert to motions at four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto John Jelinek: accept any further financial obligation than is outlined in this bill. The Olympic committee has pledged to this House that financing will be undertaken by them with the authority of this bill and they will not approach the federal government for any additional funds. As far as this party is concerned, we shall honour this commitment to the Canadian taxpayer. It was realized, however, that the study used the market distribution structure of the Munich games as its basis. The fact that Germany issued 90 per cent of its coins within its own boundaries, and the fact that only 25 per cent of the coins are to be issued on the Canadian market, could account for such a deficit prediction.
At the committee stage there was no evidence of any market research conducted into the coin and stamp proposals that would substantiate the government's proposed deficit.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) maintained that production would be regulated by market demand. In light of the lack of a market study, this appears to be a somewhat short-sighted reply or statement to the basis of the majority of the proposals which would supply the key financing for the Olympics. The original market distribution of coins announced by COJO was 35 per cent European and foreign, 25 per cent Canadian and 40 per cent United States. These figures, Mr. Speaker, if realized would account for COJO attaining its budget aims.
The proposed Post Office marketing board under the Postmaster General continues to be authorized to administer the promotion, distribution and merchandising of Olympic coins both within and outside of Canada. I sincerely trust, along with many Canadians, that the Post Office will be better able to distribute the coins than it has been able to distribute the mails.
To demonstrate some of the confusion and contradiction by the government on relevant issues of this bill one need only examine the proposal for a premium on the coins. The idea of a 10 per cent premium on the coins was first mentioned in committee by the Postmaster General. Later the same day the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) disputed this statement by saying that no premium was to be charged. These conflicting statements by two senior government members continue to illustrate that from the outset the government has been totally confused, ill-informed and ill-prepared in its dealings with the entire Olympic matter. We have once again, through the existence of an amendment, assured the Canadian taxpayer that no Olympic coins will be sold at less that face value.
The only people within the federal government who seem to have any knowledge whatsoever of what is taking place are the employees of the federal Mint who, I understand, had geared up for production of the coins even prior to second reading of this bill in the House. If the Prime Minister felt that passage of the bill was assured in its initial form, and on the strength of this he instructed the Mint to proceed with preparations of the coins, I can assure the hon. gentleman that he was most definitely mistaken, for without the amendments presently incorporated in this bill he would have had no such support from this House in so far as financing through the minting of these special coins is concerned.
Olympic Bill
The most effective way to assure sufficient sales is to adhere to the policy of limited mintage; in other words, a production and distribution ceiling. By promoting limited mintage the coin sales could be regulated and monitored to ensure that the market is available. The value of the coins would also be increased if limited mintage were practised. For example, the 1948 dollar, of which only 18,000 were minted, is now worth approximately $240.
In order to ensure that the Olympic organizing committee would receive its maximum expected revenue, our party took strong steps to add amendments to the bill which would place a $450 million production ceiling on the value of the coins issued. This was opposed by the NDP. This is more than enough to allow for a $260 million revenue to be obtained by COJO to satisfy their budget. To prevent a federal deficit which could result from overpayment, we initiated a $260 million revenue ceiling on moneys going to the Olympic organizing committee; $250 million from the sale of coins and $10 million from the sale of stamps.
The most important omission from the bill was the provision for an audit and general report to parliament. How this was omitted when Bill C-196 was first proposed is completely beyond any understanding. It continues to reflect the Prime Minister's attitude of not caring about this bill, save saying to the people of Quebec that he approved the legislation giving them authority to have their games. At the same time, he has offered no safeguards to the rest of Canada or to the taxpayer in general. The Progressive Conservative Party feels that safeguards are necessary and these safeguards must be explained to all Canadians so they will fully understand just how the Olympic financing is structured and how it will affect them.
The amendment insisted upon by this party is to allow for a biennial report from both the Postmaster General as well as the Minister of Finance, allowing parliament to retain strict control over its financial responsibilities to COJO. From these reports we will be able to gauge the market expectations for the coins and stamps and align production accordingly. Without such reports, as outlined in the initial bill, the Postmaster General would have had no real basis for calculation, nor could he ever expect to have had any basis for calculation. The same amendment provides the opportunity to bring this bill back into committee for any needed adjustments if and when necessary, this dependent upon the signature of 60 members requesting such action.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, of prime concern to this party was the likelihood that the coins would circulate, and had this in fact happened there were no contingency plans for the possible redemption of these coins. Therefore, we have now proposed an amendment, which has been accepted, to the legislation to control the circulation of this currency by giving the Minister of Finance the right to redeem coins at face value if, in his opinion, the amount of these coins in circulation would be detrimental to Canadian currency. The cost of redeeming the coins, minus the value of the silver content, will then be charged back to the Olympic account.
It was also feared, Mr. Speaker, that at some point in time these coins, being legal Canadian currency, would be

July 25, 1973
Olympic Bill
re-sold at less that face value. In order to ensure that the organizing committee and the federal government were not hindered in realizing their full expectations, the Progressive Conservative Party proposed an amendment to disallow the sale of these coins below face value. In this manner both parties should receive maximum value from the sale of each coin.
There is yet another point. The manufacture, distribution and sale of postal-related products could have had a damaging effect on the Canadian arts and crafts business, as these products were not adequately defined and the decision was left to the Postmaster General. There can be no question that the four year period from 1973 to 1976, inclusive, can provide an economic boom for Canadian crsftsmen from the sale of Olympic commemorative items to the tourist trade. If the postal-related products are not clearly defined, it can put the government in direct competition with private individuals who do not have the low overhead costs and the public funds of the Post Office Department. We strongly suggested that the bill be amended so as to discontinue this practice and to clearly define postal-related products. This has been done and the bill has been amended to cover this discrepancy.
We acknowledge that within the Canadian Olympic structure Montreal applied to become the host city for the 1976 games, and that it was a Canadian decision to nominate Montreal as the representative Canadian city for consideration as the host of the 1976 Olympics. The award went to Montreal on behalf of Canada, so let us not make any mistake or have any misunderstanding, some of which may have arisen because of the secretive way in which the Prime Minister has handled this matter from the outset. Had the Prime Minister been forthright in this respect to both the House and the Canadian people at the outset, this last minute panic, confusion and uncertainty would never have arisen.
In conclusion I reiterate, however, that we do not support the method in which this bill was presented to the House. The inexcusable delay in introducing this legislation serves only to illustrate the inaction and ineptness of the government. It is unfortunate that an event such as the 1976 Olympics, which can have such long-term advantages for the youth of Canada, the youth of the world and Canadians in general, should have been subjected to the secretive confusion surrounding the entire event. Nor will we relent in our questioning regarding the financing of the housing in the Olympic village where CMHC will be so heavily involved. To date, answers to questions regarding CMHC have been far from conclusive, have been far too general in scope and leave far too many questions unanswered in the minds of the members of this party.
Also, we should ensure that sufficient security is provided so that we do not have to concern ourselves with a repetition of the unfortunate incident at Munich. This matter also has been treated with vagueness and indifference by the Prime Minister and has resulted in questions being raised in the minds of of many Canadians as to what security in fact will be provided and at what cost to the Canadian taxpayers.

We shall continue our investigation into what appears to be a $25 million grant to the CBC to act as host televiser for the Olympic games. Unanswered questions in this area include, among others, why the CTV has continually offered its resources in the area of television and has not been asked to participate, thus greatly reducing the expenses of the CBC and ultimately the taxpayer. It is a known fact that CTV operates at a fraction of the cost of the CBC and provides a similar quality of coverage and commentary.
While the present administration has taken this matter lightly and has burdened private industry with its own responsibility, our party does not intend to sit idly by without closely scrutinizing the entire operation. It is with these amendments to the bill and with the points which I have mentioned in mind that the Progressive Conservative Party gives its support to Bill C-196 in its present form.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. When the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) completed his speech the Chair did not realize that the hon. member had moved an amendment to the motion for third reading of the bill, so before proceeding further at this time, and having checked the transcript, the chair would invite the hon. member to again put the amendment to the House.


William Arnold Peters: I move:
That Bill C-196 be not now read a third time but be read this day six months hence.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in line with what my colleague has just stated concerning Bill C-196, I would like to trace the rather strange history of the financing of the summer 1976 Olympics in particular relation to the debate that has ebbed and flowed in this House and the questions that have been asked for many years. I should like, also, to outline the inconsistency between the statements that have been made from time to time, in particular by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), concerning the fact that no special financing arrangements were going to be made to finance the Montreal Olympics.
In short, I suggest that when this is all put together and we see the bill that has been produced and is now being given third reading, and when we consider the evidence that was given before the standing committee, we can only presume that the Prime Minister has either been extremely naive on this entire matter, or that he has not been naive but, rather, has been most deceptive with the House and with the public of Canada. Possibly, he has simply not understood the officials who reported to him, or else the officials have not understood the matter sufficiently in their proposals with respect to the financing of the 1976 summer Olympics.
I see it is almost four o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I would have the consent of the House to call it four o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Four o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) propose to adjourn the debate?
July 25, 1973


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the present debate be adjourned.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that we have learned of the death of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. Canada has lost a great Canadian, but his work lives on and his name will always be associated with qualities that are respected and admired throughout the country.
The Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, as a person, as a public servant and as a statesman, long ago won a permanent place in the affection and esteem of Canadians. His unfailing sense of courtesy and respect for others gave to him a quality of courtliness and kindliness which are encountered all too rarely today.
Mr. St. Laurent had a profound faith in Canada. He was motivated by a deep sense of public duty and believed there could be no greater honour than to serve one's country. He entered public life primarily to foster Canadian harmony. His contribution to the better understanding of Canada by Canadians was immense, and everywhere he became the symbol of tolerance and unity. His 16 years of public service were fruitful years for this country, domestically and internationally.
His legacy to Canada permeates Canadian life. As Minister of Justice, Secretary of State for External Affairs, and Prime Minister he played a leading role in the social, constitutional and judicial development of this country. He was, to use a phrase he once applied to others, an enlightened patriot. Canada is a better place because he lived among us.
I know that all Canadians join with me in expressing sympathy to Mr. St. Laurent's family.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec and our country as a whole have lost a most distinguished citizen. His name was a symbol of the very strength of Quebec. As a Canadian citizen, father, lawyer and statesman, his life was an example of courage, determination and integrity. He was a great Quebecer, a great French-Canadian, in short, a great Canadian.
Passing of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent

Mr. St. Laurent achieved great respect in his profession as a member of the bar. His name was highly respected. When Mr. King called upon him to enter the government of Canada as minister of justice during the war, in the service of his country, Mr. St. Laurent was a great unifying force for Canada. He was a minister of extraordinary capacity and resourcefulness, as I was frequently told by one of his former distinguished colleagues, the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley.
It was not my privilege to serve with Mr. St. Laurent in the House of Commons. I observed him at a distance as a formidable, able party leader, a man who obviously inspired great public confidence. He was held in great respect throughout this country by those who served with him politically as well as by those who opposed him politically. He was regarded as a non-partisan leader. Although one may have differed with Mr. St. Laurent in opinion, one never questioned his sincerity or his intention to further the interests of his fellow citizens. He was regarded with great affection throughout this land.
I share the sorrow of the House in paying my respects at this time to the late Mr. St. Laurent, and I wish to extend my sympathy and the sympathy of the members of my party in this House to the members of his family.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the death of any person, humble or great, is always a cause for sympathetic sorrow on the part of anyone with any sensitivity. But I think it is perhaps appropriate to say that one need not feel sorrow at the passing of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. Life is not eternal. It has to come to an end. And when it comes to an end at the age of 91 for a man who has given so much to society, and has won for himself so great a name in the history of his country, one can feel great joy in having been privileged to live in the same country with such a person.
I did not serve in parliament during Mr. St. Laurent's term in the various offices he held, but I did have the pleasure of meeting him on a number of occasions and of knowing him.
[ Transla tion]
I learnt that he was a very gentle, courteous and civilized man, Mr. Speaker, a man whose heart was one with that of the people of Canada. He understood the difficulties this country faces and with all his heart he wished for a united Canada. He was not only a politician, but the leader of a nation. He was not only the leader of his party, but the leader of the people of Canada as a whole.

Because he was such a person he won the respect of every Canadian. The great fact about a democratic system such as ours is that people differing in their politics or social philosophies have respect one for another.
On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I pay tribute to a man who won, and deserved, the respect of Canadians from coast to coast, who gave of himself unstintingly in the cause of Canadian unity and Canada's future. I join others in sending our sympathy to his family, in the knowledge that this man deserved to live and that Canada is the better for the fact that he lived so long and so well.

July 25, 1973
Passing of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are deeply moved by the sudden death of an illustrious son of Canada, and particularly of French Canada.
I had the good fortune to know the right hon. Louis St-Laurent when he was Minister of Justice and Secretary of State for External Affairs. I was a member of Parliament when he became Prime Minister, replacing the right hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.
Often, in the evenings, when we were leaving Parliament, it happened that I left by the main door at the same time as Mr. and Mrs. St-Laurent. Having known him at a time when I was a relatively young member, I must say that I saw Mr. St-Laurent somewhat as a good Canadian family man, affable and not at all haughty. Everyone could talk to him. He was a true Canadian in the widest sense of the term, and I will never forget the role he played in keeping the various regions of Canada together.
Someone stated earlier that he was a great Quebeker, a great French-Canadian and a great Canadian, but I am sure that he was above all a true Canadian, a great French-Canadian, a man who was attached to his province, of course, but never to the detriment of anyone.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are so moved by his sudden death. May I, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, offer our most sincere condolences to Mr. St-Lau-rent's family.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I speak with a heavy heart this afternoon. I knew Louis St-Laurent as a friend from the days when he was president of the Canadian Bar Association, one of the most distinguished lawyers of our country. I was a member of the council of the bar in those days, and the impression that he left with me in the early 1930s, when I got to know him well, has never been effaced with the passing years.
As has been said, he came into the House of Commons, I think it was in 1942. He had a call to come here to do his part to bring about a unity within this nation which at that time was deeply challenged. He gave up a tremendous law practice. I remember the first day that he spoke in this House as minister of justice. It was a lawyer's speech; it was a speech representing the epitome of the service that he was to render his country.
It is strange how our paths have crossed during the years. When he was minister of justice, I was opposition critic. He talked very freely with me at all times. I shall never forget the degree to which-I have spoken of this before-he made me the confidante of many of the things that he intended to do. Those things will not be written by me but they will always be a memory of one for whom I had not only respect but affection.
He became secretary of state for external affairs, and in large measure it was his concept that brought about the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He became prime minister. Later, I became leader of the opposition in 1956, and the first message of good wishes that I received was from Louis St. Laurent.
Later I became Prime Minister and leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I think of him not only as the great lawyer that he was but as a devoted servant of the Crown, for it was his invitation that brought about the visit of Her Majesty the Queen and the opening of parliament by the monarch for the first time in our history. He understood the meaning of justice and of equity. While reared in the province of Quebec with a knowledge of the Code, he had an abiding admiration for the common law.
It is difficult for me to speak of him in an impersonal sense. On occasion he would touch the heights in debate in this House. He and I were the last surviving members of Her Majesty's Imperial Privy Council in Canada. I do not speak of him with that admiration that I possess only now that he is gone. He knew it: he knew how I felt while he lived, and I never forgot his birthday, which was something that he very much appreciated.
A great Canadian in this place made his contribution to a united Canada, his life devoted to the establishment of one Canada, one nation, while at the same time maintaining, and rightly so, the traditional constitutional rights of his paternal ancestry. It is hard to speak of him as freely as I would like. He gave of his best and he loved his country. He never quite understood, despite his years at the bar, the clash of debate in the House of Commons. He represented the concept that, I am not ashamed to say in that I followed it through the years, realized that this institution is a place in which, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said, we may disagree but we build up tremendous respect and regard for those who sit opposite.
I join in the expressions of deep mourning at his passing at a very advanced age, and in the sympathy extended to the members of his family. I couple with that my deepest appreciation that I was privileged to sit in this House for 15 years while he sat opposite. He loved Canada, he lived for Canada and his memory will be forever honoured in our country.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, one will understand that being member for Quebec East and succeeding Mr. St-Laurent who had represented this constituency for 15 years, I wish to join my humble voice to that of the previous speakers and pay tribute to a great man who has just disappeared, the right hon. Louis St-Laurent.
I knew Louis St-Laurent quite well. For 15 years, I was not only closely involved in his political activities in the riding of Quebec East, but I had many opportunities of holding most interesting conversations with him. What always impressed me about this former Prime Minister of Canada is the dignity and composure of his conversations that made him so interesting as well as engaging.
In 1965, when it was a matter for me of being a candidate in the riding of Quebec East, I recall that the first person whom I visited and asked for advice was the right hon. Louis St-Laurent. And I still remember his words: Duquet, you have been in politics long enough and acquired a lot of experience; if you really want to be a candidate and become a federal member of Parliament in Ottawa, the only advice I can give you is to do it with the

July 25, 1973

same dignity as I myself tried to fulfill my mandate, always in a spirit of truth and in the specific purpose of trying to serve your fellow citizens.
Mr. Speaker, with such advice coming from such a man, it has been easy for me, for eight years, to fulfill my mandate and succeed the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent in the riding of Quebec East. The people of this constituency have maintained a sort of veneration for this great man and I am convinced that in the riding of Quebec East people are now crying because of the announcement of the death of Mr. St. Laurent, even though, due to his old age, we had to expect that.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute, like previous speakers, to Mr. Louis St. Laurent. To my mind, his death will leave quite a gap, not only in Canada, in this House and in the province of Quebec but everywhere he has been; it will stir deep emotion in all those who have known him; that is why I wanted to make a few modest remarks.
On behalf of the people of the riding of Quebec East, which I represent and which he so worthily represented from 1942 to 1957, I offer to the House of Commons, to the St. Laurent family, my very deepest and most sincere condolences.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, with consent, I would like to join all my colleagues and express my sorrow at the news of the passing away of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, as well as the pride I take in
Passing of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent
having learned much from him. He always struck me, as well in his behaviour as in his speech, as the very incarnation of the most noble values that distinguish the statesman.
For us, who endeavour to better serve our fellow citizens, we could find no better example of generosity, devotion to duty, wisdom and credibility.
In the story of his life, Canadians, the young ones in particular, will read whole chapters that will stir in them new faith in public men.
To the family of the illustrious deceased, I offer my heartfelt condolences.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as a mark of our respect for the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, I move the adjournment of the House for the remainder of this day.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, if it is agreeable to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp), that Your Honour convey to the family of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent the deepest sympathies of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: It will, of course, be the duty of the Chair to convey these messages to the family of the Right Hon. Louis St.Laurent.
It is moved by Mr. MacEachen, seconded by Mr. Stanfield, that this House do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On the motion of Mr. MacEachen the House adjourned at 4.26 p.m.

Thursday, July 26, 1973