1973-07-26

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter requiring immediate consideration. In light of the fact that the conciliation report on the rail strike was received on July 13, and that the three-man board could not reach common ground, at that this strike is now in fact taking place, with potentially serious national consequences, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That in the opinion of this House the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) should now personally intervene to end this dispute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity and the motion cannot be put.


SUPPLYING OF SUMMER UNIFORMS TO PROTECTIVE
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to ask leave of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That this House goes on record as believing action should be taken that will provide to the uniformed members of the protective staff of parliament, uniforms of appropriate summer weight and design that will allow these employees the utmost comfort in the carrying out of their responsibilities.


Mr. Speaker:: At this point I have to advise the hon. member that he may place the Chair in a very difficult
position. I think I owe it to the House to advise the hon. member that members of the protective staff are already supplied with uniforms of this type, that is with summer weight uniforms. In the circumstances, I would think the hon. member might not wish to embarrass the Chair and the staff of the House in the way the motion would have to be put. I am sure that all hon. members wish that our staff, including I am sure, members at the table, work in the best possible conditions.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reply to that suggestion. Yesterday, I indicated to the Chair that I was not quite certain just how arrangements were made for supplying uniforms to the protective staff. I must go on record as saying that, even if some people involved in the problem of supplying uniforms to the staff feel that is a summer weight uniform, there are more appropriate summer weight uniforms. Just look at the armed service personnel in this country. They certainly try to maintain a decorum that is appropriate and look much more comfortable than these men.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I should like to move a motion relating to the fact that on June 24, 1972, a Beechcraft 18 aircraft crashed at Winnipeg, Manitoba, killing eight Indian school children and the pilot. The Department of Transport report of February 23, 1973, listed the cause of the crash as loss of engine power and the failure of the pilot to respond effectively to the situation. However, new evidence has come-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is entirely out of order when he makes a speech in support of his motion, I have to remind the hon. member, and all hon. members, that motions under Standing Order 43 are in a special category in that they do not provide for the possibility of a response to allegations which are submitted to the House in support of such motions. Hon. members are asked, and have been asked in the past, to indicate what the motion is, without argument and without a long recital of facts.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I will come directly to my motion under Standing Order 43, which is as follows:
That the Department of Transport immediately re-open the investigation of the crash in light of the new evidence about the


Oral Questions
competence of the pilot, and that this report be tabled in the House of Commons.
In the absence of the Minister of Transport, I presented this new evidence to the Acting Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre under the terms of Standing Order 43. It requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Labour arises out of his assurances that everything possible will be done to prevent disruption in the movement of grain and also from the evident interruption in the movement of grain which will come about in the next 48 hours. What proposals or arrangements to guarantee the movement of grain were prepared by the government, were such arrangements conveyed to the parties concerned by the government mediator, and what new action is the government now taking to prevent further disruption in the movement of grain?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the unions concerned in this dispute have given every assurance that they are going to co-operate to the maximum extent to move the grain. I think they should be commended for this. We expect the companies to co-operate to the fullest extent possible. I think this is the most constructive solution we can imagine to ensure that grain is moved adequately.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister satisfied that the action taken by the unions will not interfere with the movement of grain at the Lakehead? Is the minister satisfied with this?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there may be some dislocation in terms of precise timing, but I am optimistic that the grain will move, and I remain optimistic.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- GOVERNMENT CONTINGENCY PLAN TO KEEP GRAIN MOVING IN EVENT OF STRIKE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the assurance given by the Prime Minister on July 16 that the government had prepared and was prepared to use a contingency plan to guarantee the movement of Canadian grain to world markets, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House if the government is prepared to introduce any such plan in the event that the movement of grain is halted at the Lakehead?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should all be interested in the settlement of this dispute. I listened to what the Minister of Labour said about the assurance given by the trade unions. For the time being, I certainly would rely upon that.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- LAYING-OFF OF WORKERS BY COMPANIES- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the two major railway companies, CN and CP, have laid off thousands of workers not on strike and not in Ontario, and that the companies are suggesting that when the 48-hour strike is over in Ontario not all these striking employees will be re-employed. As such action by the railway companies is bound to create a general strike on the railways, instead of the limited strike that the union now proposes, is the minister prepared to tell the heads of the railways that they should stop acting in this provocative way?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to discuss with the railways any possible means that can be adopted in order to cause as little dislocation as possible.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- SUGGESTED INTERVENTION BY MINISTER
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact the minister's assistant deputy, Mr. Kelly, failed in his most recent attempt to bring the two parties back together, as evidenced by the walk-out in Ontario today, does he now intend to exercise his responsibility under the law and and personally intervene with a view to bringing these two parties back together?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to agree with the premise of the hon. member's question that Mr. Kelly's efforts have failed because of the temporary walk-out identified by the hon. member. As far as I am concerned, I have already intervened to some extent with the parties and I am prepared to intervene a great deal more if it will assist.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT PRESENT NEW PROPOSALS TO UNION FOR NEGOTIATION
James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact the rotating strikes have already started and this could result in a lockout by the railways, thereby tying up the whole national transportation system, will the Acting Prime Minister advise whether the government has met or is prepared to meet with the railways with a view to placing new proposals before the union as a basis for future negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the procedures being followed by the Minister of Labour are most likely to produce results, for the time being at least.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- POSSIBLE RECOURSE TO LEGISLATION-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Drummond wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Still concerning the railway conflict, would the minister intend by any chance to resort to special legislation to end the railway conflict?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this party and the government are committed to the principle of free collective bargaining, and I take it most opposition parties are also,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: -I sincerely hope that type of action will not be necessary.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- CO-OPERATION OF COMPANIES WITH UNIONS IN MOVING GRAIN IN EVENT OF STRIKE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Transport discussed with the railway companies methods by which they could co-operate in implementing the desire of the union that grain shipments be not interfered with by the rotating strikes that are taking place? Have actual plans been worked out between the companies and the union with government assistance in order to keep the grain moving?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am sure various studies have been made by the Wheat Board and departments concerned on this matter. However, in terms of specifics, I believe the minister who is directly responsible will be back in the House soon. Perhaps the hon. member could ask his question at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain on a supplementary, try to complete the first round of questions and return to this question in a short while.
Oral Questions


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO SETTLE WITHOUT LEGISLATION
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: In light of the fact it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned if the dispute could be settled without legislation, can the Minister of Labour outline to the House what action the government is prepared to take at this time to facilitate the settlement of this dispute before it becomes necessary to legislate the men back to work?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already answered that question.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who yesterday seemed to reply to questions concerning the Canada Development Corporation. Can the minister briefly inform the House the purpose of CDC offering to purchase 10 million shares of Texas Gulf, an act which may be very useful to Canada if it is part of a policy framework to buy back parts of Canada for Canadians?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: As I indicated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, this is directly in line with the stated objective of CDC to acquire a significant interest in Canadian resource industries.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that this is a most significant action by the CDC involving a very large outlay of $290 million, and since the CDC found it necessary to offer a price considerably higher than the market price at the time, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he would agree to refer the matter of the action taken by the CDC with regard to Texas Gulf to the appropriate parliamentary committee so that the president may appear and explain the theory, policies and framework within which this action was taken.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not sure that now would be the appropriate time to do as the hon. member suggests at this stage of our parliamentary proceedings, but I am quite sure that in the ordinary course of events officials of the CDC will appear before the appropriate parliamentary committee.


Some hon. Members:: Read the Act!


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF SHARES IN TEXAS GULF-CONSULTATION WITH GOVERNMENT
David Lewis: Even though I appreciate that the CDC is, by the decision-a bad decision in my view-of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Parliament!


Oral Questions


David Lewis: -of parliament, if you like; a parliament which the government at one time controlled-even though the CDC is an independent corporation, I should like to ask the minister whether the officials of CDC consulted with him or, to his knowledge, with any other member of the government, or any officials of the relevant departments, before it decided to make this offer to Texas Gulf?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It
is my understanding that the offer being made to Texas Gulf, or to the shareholders of Texas Gulf-


Mr. Bell:: To the American ones, not the Canadian ones.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -was consequent on a decision by the board. The board includes as ex officio members respresenting the government as shareholders, the deputy ministers of finance and of industry, trade and commerce.


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF SHARES IN TEXAS GULF-LIABILITY FOR EXPENDITURES OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Can the hon. gentleman tell the House whether he has had any discussions at all with officials of CDC regarding the assets and liabilities of this large multinational corporation and, in particular, whether in fact the multinational character of Texas Gulf would involve the CDC in the expenditure of taxpayers' money in countries outside Canada, including Australia?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: When one talks about the expenditure of taxpayers' money I think it is in the sense of expenditure of either earnings or capital,-


Gerald William Baldwin: How about the $300 million?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -and control of this is in the hands of the board, as in the case of other independent Crown corporations.
[ Translation]


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF SHARES IN TEXAS GULF-DISCUSSION WITH DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the hon. President of the Treasury Board. Can he tell this House if the Canada Development Corporation has consulted the Department of Regional Economic Expansion before taking this decision, and does he intend to suggest that the CDC regularly consult the Department of Regional Economic Expansion so that the funds available be used for the development of Canada's resources for Canadians?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: am quite sure the officials and directors of CDC do maintain liaison with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
(Mr. Lewis.]


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-SUGGESTED ASSURANCE TO UNITED STATES CHERRY POINT REFINERY CAN BE SUPPLIED FROM CANADIAN SOURCES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. In the light of a statement made yesterday concerning studies which show that Cherry Point Refinery can and should be supplied from inland, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House why the energy adviser at the Canadian embassy in Washington has consistently dismissed suggestions that Canada can guarantee increased oil deliveries to Washington over the inland route?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot speak for the oil adviser to the government in Washington. I do not know whether that is what he said or not.


Donald W. Munro: In that case, Mr. Speaker, could the Acting Prime Minister take a positive course and assure the House that the government will now supply the embassy in Washington, for transmission to both the executive and legislative branches of the United States government, with all studies of Canada's capability of supplying the Cherry Point refinery with inland oil, and that these studies will also be tabled in the House here in Ottawa?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, now that it appears as if the TAPS line is going to be built, it becomes necessary, if we are to carry out our undertaking to do everything possible to protect the inner waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, that we should be having negotiations of this kind. I do now say to the hon. member, as I said yesterday to hon. members, that these will be the negotiations and, therefore, I do not think I would want to reveal all the cards that we are holding at this time.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PREVENT OIL SHIPMENTS ENTERING STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA
Donald W. Munro: May I ask
one further supplementary? Will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that every device will be used, including reference to the IJC, to prevent oil shipments entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca being increased?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the House has perhaps forgotten that this was a suggestion made by the Canadian government. In June, 1972 a unanimous resolution was approved by this House of Commons endorsing the government's view. This was rejected by the United States.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-ASSURANCE OF CANADIAN SOURCE OF SUPPLY FOR CHERRY POINT REFINERY AS ALTERNATIVE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the


Acting Prime Minister. Has the Canadian government at any time transmitted to the United States government our willingness to make some arrangements to supply Cherry Point with Canadian crude in return for an assurance that large tankers will not enter the Strait of Juan de Fuca and, if so, by which minister in the Canadian government was such as offer communicated to the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it was communicated to the United States government on several occasions that this was a possibility open in the event that the TAPS line was approved. As I have said on several occasions, we are not opposed to the TAPS line as such across Alaska and the transportation of oil down to California. All our submissions to the United States government have been on the undesirable effects of big tankers moving into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement that this information has been conveyed to the United States government on a number of occasions, would he be prepared to have the correspondence tabled, from whatever minister made this offer to the U.S. government, so we will have an opportunity to see what the nature of that communication was?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that we had made any offers of that kind in writing, and I think it would have been most undesirable to have done so at that time. What I did say was that this was a possibility we had discussed generally with the United States. I think I should also say to the hon. member that the United States has resisted all of these proposals we have made in the past simply because the administration was absolutely committeed to proceeding with the TAPS line and did not want any studies or discussions going on that might have thrown any doubt upon it. That is the truth.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-JOINT UNITED STATES-CANADA GROUP TO STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister with reference to the group which he said yesterday had been set up sometime ago, and which the day before yesterday he indicated was about to be set up, to examine the environmental difficulties and recommend measures to offset these. How long has this group actually been at work and when may we expect some word as to what it is up to?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, after the government of the United States turned down the Canadian proposal that this question should be referred to the IJC, my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and Mr. Train got together to discuss this question. They have had a number of discussions which have dealt with oil spill emergency arrangements, means for improving navigation conditions, possible joint scientific studies of the inner waters and questions relating to legal liability and compensation. These talks have been going on continuously since that time.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member for Vancouver South will allow the Chair, perhaps I should recognize the hon. member for Richmond first, following which we will return to this subject by way of the hon. member for Vancouver South.

[ Transla tion]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that the unemployment insurance offices in charge of getting reimbursement of amounts paid in excess to former beneficiaries of unemployment insurance, and that several formerly unemployed persons are having their salaries garnished merely on the strength of civil servants' findings, can the minister tell the House whether this corresponds with the instructions of his department or the government?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in answer to similar questions, the Unemployment Insurance Commission is required by law to do its best to collect overpayments from benefit recipients. Its present policy is to negotiate this with recipients to make an arrangement that is not overly onerous in attempting to repay it, but it is required by law to seek reimbursement of overpayments when those have been made.


ALLEGED GARNISHEE OF SALARY TO COMPENSATE FOR OVERPAYMENT-REQUEST GOVERNMENT HELP CLAIMANTS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.
As it is very costly for those former unemployed to defend themselves before the courts, and especially against the simple conclusions arrived at by the employees of the department, can the minister say if he will enable those former unemployed to defend themselves in any way before the courts in a more satisfactory way?


Robert Knight Andras: Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that before the matter ever reaches the courts, every attempt is made to negotiate with the particular person who has received an overpayment to make arrangements that will obviate that formal stage.


Oral Questions ENERGY


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-POSSIBLE MEETING WITH MINISTER OF PARLIAMENTARY GROUP WHICH WENT TO WASHINGTON-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF DAY FOR DEBATE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Will he assure the House that the interparliamentary committee which went to Washington two days ago will be able to meet immediately with the appropriate government ministers before the debate on this subject is set. I remind the Acting Prime Minister that he indicated yesterday that such a debate would be set.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would be very happy to meet with all members of the group that went to Washington. I think I can also speak for my colleagues in that regard. I hope we can finish the capital punishment debate and be in a position to set aside a day to discuss this very important issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate we are not making very much headway. I think we are still on the first three or four questions because we have had so many supplementaries on the first questions raised which hon. members said would be brief, but supplementaries are always said to be brief. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver South, followed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John Allen Fraser: Thank you very much for your indulgence Mr. Speaker. My question is very brief. Can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the meeting just referred to will take place, and a debate will take place, before the House is adjourned for the recess.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. That matter is not in my hands.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, mine is a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a couple of questions arising out of the answers already given. With the railway strike in the present position there is a grave feeling that our contracts for wheat may not be upheld. The minister mentioned that he is optimistic about the situation as a consequence of a couple of interventions, if I understood him correctly, he made with the labour leaders. Would he tell the House the basis for his optimism and also what report he has to date regarding the number of cars of grain being held up because of this strike.


John Carr Munro: In terms of living up to our contracts, I do not believe there is any immediate danger there. If the hon. member for Prince Albert wishes specifics on that I can get them for him. I

cannot relate them in detail to him. In terms of the basis for my optimism, it is based on the good sense of both parties to the dispute, and I believe there has been already evidence that that type of confidence is justified.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- LENGTH OF TIME STRIKE PERMITTED BEFORE LEGISLATIVE ACTION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been laden with optimism in the past which did not turn out to be justified. I ask him how long the government anticipates this state of affairs will continue before parliament will act so that the economy of this nation will not be unnecessarily weakened. Has the government any plans in this regard or does it simply intend to paddle along day by day?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear this question from the right hon. member for Prince Albert who always has been a man who has stood for free collective bargaining, as I understand it, and historically always against intervention in respect of giving people their legitimate rights recognized by parliament. I think the parties should be allowed to bargain in a free and collective way, and when the public interest is at stake I think this government will exercise its responsibility, but I hope that will not be necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this attempt at a lecture from the Liberal minister has no particular effect on me. I ask him how long it can be expected that the strike will be permitted to continue without this government having the backbone to bring before parliament the necessary action. How long will the security of the nation be undermined because of such generalities as those in which he has just indulged.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister could be allowed to reply briefly. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has a supplementary. It appears that the question period will not be moving along, and I am not sure whether this is what hon. members wish.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Does the minister not want to answer-


John Carr Munro: Yes, I do.


John George Diefenbaker: -or is he afraid?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE COMPANIES WILL CO-OPERATE WITH UNIONS IN MOVEMENT OF GRAIN
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert concerning whether or not the minister consulted with the unions, particularly on the grain movement. In view of the fact that the workers will


continue to move grain as well as operate ferries, may I ask the minister if he has met with the management of the railway companies to secure assurance from them that they will co-operate with the decision of the workers to move grain and operate ferries to the island of Newfoundland.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I did not get the import of the hon. member's question. Will he please repeat it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am asking if the minister has met with the management of the railway companies to secure assurance from them that the offer of the workers of the railways to continue to move grain and operate shipping to Newfoundland and other points off our coasts will be matched by the railway management?


John Carr Munro: I have not personally had those discussions. I believe discussions have been held. I believe to this point we have not had the absolute assurance to which the hon. member is referring.


MANPOWER
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since there are now 85,000 young Quebecers without work, does the minister intend to introduce a special policy to remedy this deplorable situation or, at the very least, to meet the Quebec government authorities to discuss and improve the situation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, discussions of this kind are going on almost constantly with the Quebec authorities. I would say as I said the other day, that we are gratified that although this situation is still at a level that satisfies nobody it is showing improving characteristics. There are fewer young people unemployed this year than last year, and we are exerting every effort, as I have stated very often in this House, to relieve the situation in respect of finding employment.
[ Transla tion]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since an official of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Mr. Doyon, has stated that if people spent 40 hours a week seeking employment, there would not be 85,000 young unemployed in Quebec, is the minister prepared to assure that Canadian industry is now capable of absorbing 500,000 unemployed?
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Revenue are away from the House. In light of the announcement by the Director General of Veterinary Services of the Department of Agriculture that there has been a very serious outbreak of hoof and mouth disease in Europe and a warning that Canadian travellers should take appropriate precautions, can the minister tell the House whether there has been any action taken by the government on a concerted plan to prevent any Canadian travellers coming back from Europe from bringing this disease into Canada, with the disastrous results we all know can occur?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those half dozen or so ministers the hon. member referred to, I will have to take this question as notice.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-VISIT OF PARLIAMENTARIANS TO WASHINGTON-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENT BY ACTING PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. For the benefit of all hon. members I would like him to clarify the answer given by him to a question yesterday with respect to the Canadian parliamentarians' visit to Washington. In an answer at page 5965 of Hansard he said:
They went without instructions from the government and they will not report to us.
In answer to the same question asked by the hon. member for Peace River as reported on the following page the minister had this to say:
I think it was a very useful exchange. A report which was full and not biased-
Will the minister tell me in which of those statements he is telling the truth?


MANPOWER
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of press reports to the effect that tapes have been released pertaining to a tele-


Oral Questions
phone conversation in which a Liberal member of parliament told a certain group in Montreal that they would not get certain grants unless they kept quiet about the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and in view of the minister's statement in the House on Monday that until he read about it in the press he knew nothing about this, is he now in a position to make clear what he told the hon. member for LaSalle?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the situation has not been changed in any way. I was not aware of any request for such a grant. I did not discuss such a grant with anybody. I have since checked with the UIC and they advise me that they have no knowledge of an application for such a grant. I have asked departmental officials responsible for Local Initiative Programs to check, and they advise me they have no record of any such application being made or rejected. They are searching again to see if there is any possibility that this group is part of a larger group for instance, the Greater Montreal Poverty Group.
So far as I am concerned there was no discussion of a grant. The discussion between myself and the hon. gentleman to which reference is made involved methods by which we could learn of and deal with specific details of concern to this group in respect to claimants in the Montreal area. When there have been representations made to us with respect to very valid complaints we have been able to follow these up, but it is very difficult to deal with others of a very general nature. I have no knowledge of any possibility of a grant being involved in this situation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will you produce the tapes, or are you going to follow Nixon's example?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear hon. members asking for the tapes. These tapes have been made public. Would the minister comment also on the assertion that he had discussions with the Secretary of State about such a grant?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I certainly make the assertion that I had no conversation with the Secretary of State about this grant whatsoever. He is in the House and I am sure he can confirm that.

[ Translation]


ATOMIC ENERGY
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in his absence, I shall put it to the acting minister.
Could the minister tell the House whether the cabinet or the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as well as Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. are considering projects for building a new heavy water plant in Canada, and if so, does not Quebec meet all requirements for the establishment of such a plant?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the Canadian government and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. are now considering the possibility of building a new heavy water plant. Several sites are being considered in Quebec. Subject to detailed environmental studies, these sites would seem appropriate. I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me advance notice of his question.


POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING HEAVY WATER PLANT IN QUEBEC-SELECTION OF GASPE AS SITE
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Following his affirmative reply, could the minister say if Gaspe is considered as the future plant site?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member did not give me any notice of his question, I can tell him that the Gaspe Peninsula is really one of the areas that have been considered as possible sites.

[ English]


AIR TRANSPORT
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in light of new evidence indicating that, contrary to the report of the Department of Transport, the cause of the crash of a Beechcraft 18 at Winnipeg on June 24, 1972, was the complete incompetence of the pilot, will the Minister of Transport undertake to re-open the investigation immediately, and table in the House of Commons the report arising from such further investigation? I direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman had the courtesy to send me today a transcript of the broadcast which he claims contains some new information about this terrible tragedy. I am passing it along to the Department of Transport for investigation.


SUGGESTION PROVINCIAL AMBULANCE SYSTEM BE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of my question directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is based on the fact that far too many Canadians die unnecessarily each year because of the state of our ambulance and emergency services. Has the minister recently received a working paper on ambulance and emergency services in Canada recommending, among other things, that the federal government accept a

provincial ambulance system as an insured service under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act? If so, can we expect action very soon in this regard, or does the minister intend to table this report?
[Transla tion]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that indeed a report has been sent to my department, but I have not had the opportunity to look at it yet.

[ English]


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General and I have given him notice of it. Arising from the current rapid turnover of postal employees due to deteriorating morale in the service, is the Post Office Department conducting a survey of these former employees in an effort to improve working conditions, and is the department using the expertise of the Department of Labour in carrying out this survey?
[Transla tion)


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I can confirm indeed that a questionnaire has been sent to former employees of the Calgary area. It is the only place, to my knowledge, where a questionnaire was sent. I can assure the hon. member that the questionnaire was specifically sent, because the authorities of my department, in order to improve their relations with employees, wish to know the reasons of their departure, their views on working conditions, training, opportunities for promotion and various other aspects dealing with the status of employees within the department.
[ English]


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Could the hon. gentleman inform the House if it is the intention of his department to carry out similar surveys across Canada? If so, will they be carried out in conjunction with the expertise of the Department of Labour? In the interests of restoring confidence in Canada's postal service, will results of the surveys be made available to postal unions and members of parliament?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: As to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the hon. member that we have within the Post Office Department a Staff Relations Branch which indeed maintains close and constant contact with the Department of Labour of Canada.
As to the second part of the question, it goes without saying that if this investigation in the Calgary area proves very useful, we shall institute similar actions in other areas of our country.
Oral Questions
As to the last part, when in possession of the findings, we shall decide whether it is appropriate to convey them to the union representatives of the Post Office employees.


EXHIBITIONS
[Stage Direction]
EXPO '74; SPOKANE, WASHINGTON-REASON FOR FAILURE OF CANADA TO HAVE PAVILION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister or the appropriate minister if another department is involved. In view of the recent disappointing announcement that Canada would not have a pavilion at Expo '74 which is to be held in Spokane, State of Washington, next year, I would ask the minister why Canada, at this late date, has decided not to participate in Expo '74 after indicating to Expo officials months ago that a Canadian pavilion would be constructed for Canadian exhibits?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure how urgent the question is. It seems to me that perhaps it should be placed on the order paper, but if the minister has a reply it could be given now.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this question was considered very carefully over a period of recent weeks, and we came to the conclusion that the Canadian government had higher priorities and limited resources, and this was one of the projects that would have to be sacrificed.


Randolph Harding: A supplementary and this is rather urgent, Mr. Speaker, because if construction is to take place it must take place immediately. In view of the exceedingly favourable publicity which a Canadian pavilion would generate for Canada, and in view of the modest $1.5 million involved, I would ask the minister if the government will reconsider its position on this important matter?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a representation.


An hon. Member:: What about a LIP grant?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rimouski.
*	4=	*
[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works.
Is he aware of Competition No. 73-PW-CR-CC-15 for a suitable applicant for the position of foreman for miscellaneous trades? On page 3 of the notice, in the section dealing with the linguistic requirements we read that English is essential, but there are no requisites regarding the French language.


Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Here again, I am under the impression that such a question could be put on the order paper. Should it be urgent, the hon. member could discuss it at the time of adjournment.

[ English]


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence or whichever hon. member is handling his portfolio today. Is the minister aware that 14 food service employees at base Gagetown, some of them breadwinners, are being laid off at the end of this month while dozens of single students are being hired at the same base for summer work?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. President of the Treasury Board.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to take that question as notice.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Would the minister advise the House whether he was personally consulted before the two-week holiday period for inmates was instituted at Archambault Institution and other institutions in the province of Quebec, and did the minister give his direct approval for those weeks of sun bathing, tennis, golf and other similar activities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the question asked in those terms is in order. The minister seems anxious to reply, and perhaps he should be given the opportunity.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I was not consulted but these two week periods are held in conjunction with the holidays which are given to the instructional staff and they are also quite in accordance with our attempt to place men in institutions as much as possible almost in the conditions of life they would have when they return to civilian life.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REASON FOR DENIAL OF PERMISSION FOR MEMBERS OF PRESS TO ACCOMPANY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION
Mr.   Sean@: A supplementary. In view of the fact that the parliamentary committee of this House investigating the Canadian Penitentiary Service was denied permission to have members

of the news media accompany it during its tour of penitentiaries, can the minister advise the House why media respresentatives were able to tour the Archambault institution yesterday and even photograph the smiling countenances of such inmates as the FLQ conspirators?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that. I must say that members of the press do go into institutions from time to time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


An hon. Member:: Do they ever come out?


William Warren Allmand: -to interview inmates and so on. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in asking his question the hon. member greatly exaggerated the conditions that prevail during these two-week vacations.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cochrane-order, please, I apologize to the hon. member. Is the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am sorry that it is necessary for me to rise on a question of privilege and I hesitate to do so. The minister has stated that I have exaggerated the conditions in the Archambault institution. As a member of the committee investigating the Canadian Penitentiary Service, I have returned from a visit to Archambault and other institutions. I saw those conditions personally. Perhaps the minister has not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has taken the floor on a question of privilege that I suggest to him respectfully was not a question of privilege but rather a point of debate. These questions and answers could always be the subject of debate between the member who asked the question and the minister who gave the reply. I suggest to hon. members that this kind of dispute should not give rise to questions of privilege. The minister claims the right to reply to the hon. member and perhaps he should be given this right in fairness, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Cochrane.


William Warren Allmand: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has said that the inmates at Archambault were playing golf. As far as I know there is no golf course at Archambault.


An hon. Member:: You do not know!


An hon. Member:: Miniature golf.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister with a change of pace. Is it the intention of the government to get rid of the blue piece of metal in front of the External Affairs building before Her Majesty the Queen opens the building officially?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that there are understandable differences of opinion about the artistic merit of this particular thing.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the question might be placed on the order paper or considered at an appropriate time, that is when it is dark, at ten o'clock. The hon. member for Cochrane.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to insist on this but since the Queen will be coming next week perhaps the minister would consider covering over this monstrosity so that Her Majesty will not think that Canadians are as naive as the emperor in Hans Christian Anderson's story-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one previously asked in respect of the escape from the penitentiaries and is directed to the House leader. I would ask the House leader if he would consider passing over his House duties to the Solicitor General so that we might all get out?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that I must call orders of the day. The question period appears to be rolling toward the end.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the last question. I ask the government House leader whether he has a fairly short answer as to what we will be doing this week and next week.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short list. We hope to complete the Olympic bill and the amendments to the Criminal Code.
Olympic Bill


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the assurances, or statements of a member on the government side in the transport committee this morning, I ask the government House leader whether he can give a commitment to the effect that when a certain piece of legislation has passed through the transport committee this week or next, it will be brought forward immediately for the report stage and third reading.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of what is happening in that committee. If there is a disposition to add to the items I have mentioned, I will be glad to co-operate.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
| English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, July 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury that Bill C-196, respecting the 1976 summer Olympic games, be read the third time and do pass; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Peters (page 5975).
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I was saying yesterday that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been either naive or deceptive with this House and the people of Canada during the past five years with respect to the financing of the 1976 summer Olympics. In many ways he could be likened to a plant manager who under questioning about a pet project that the manager seems interested in, tells his employers, who may have heard rumours to the contrary for five years, that he has made no special business concessions, has agreed to no special contributions, commitments or assistance and has not agreed to give direct financial assistance. Finally he states categorically that the project will not cost the employers a penny.
Then the manager explains at the last moment that he has agreed to turn over the bulk of his plant's production-which in this case is the Royal Canadian Mint-for four years. The plant is to be run at four times its normal volume on a non-profit basis, all of the net proceeds from the special run will be going to his pet project. To make matters worse, the employers find out that while they will make nothing out of the run, they will be contingently liable with respect to all sales made during the four-year period. I suggest the employers in such a position would first fire the employee and then make the best of the bad deal to which they had been committed by the fired employee. In this case we will have to wait for the voters who, hopefully, will do the firing of the Prime Minister. In the meantime it is up to this House, and particularly the opposition, to make the best of a bad deal.


Olympic Bill
I feel that members of the NDP have not acted responsibly in this matter. As was pointed out yesterday, representatives of that party on February 2 said they were in favour of the Olympics and in favour of the coinage and stamp issue that was contemplated and finally announced by the Prime Minister for the first time on that date. The NDP want the luxury of disassociating themselves from this Olympics deal, now that they know the nation is hooked. Whether we like it or not, the nation has been hooked by a Prime Minister whom the NDP has propped up for nine months. The nation has been hooked by a Prime Minister who, because of the NDP vote in committee on July 11, was not invited to appear before the committee and required to explain how he got the country into the position of having to turn the net proceeds from our Mint over to a private corporation for four years. He should have been required to explain why he spent four years denying what was going on, and why he now persists in pretending that what is happening is not happening.
The Conservative's proposal to have the Prime Minister appear before the committee was turned down as a result of a vote taken in committee. Eight of our members voted unanimously for the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, but the Liberal and NDP representatives on the committee said that in no way would that happen and voted against hearing the Prime Minister. It was a recorded vote.
Consider the inconsistency of the NDP. They made a statement on February 2. Yesterday one NDP member admitted that they had changed direction in the subsequent speech made on June 28. That hon. member ought to read the report of the committee meeting that occurred subsequent to June 28. He would see the direction that his party took that evening. As I said, the NDP voted against hearing the Prime Minister in committee. When my party moved an amendment, hoping to tidy up this bill and limit to $250 million the amount the Olympic corporation may get from the coinage issued plus another $10 million from the stamp issue, one or two Liberal members voted for the proposal. But not the Prime Minister's most trusted allies, the NDP. They did not vote for it.
At that time one of the NDP members of the committee made the startling comment, recorded at page 40:48 of the committee proceedings, that the limit of $250 million was unnecessarily rigid. Another of their spokesmen on the committee said he could not see voting to limit this amount because in the unlikely event that they should make a profit of the kind that had been suggested, then more power to them. He was speaking of the Olympic corporation. Earlier that member had said, as recorded at page 40:50 of the committee proceedings, that those who take the risks should also have the opportunity of receiving whatever profit there may be.
For reasons that will become evident later in my address, it was unfortunate that the committee was not allowed to question the Prime Minister. So that hon. members may know the thinking of the sponsor of this bill, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), they should know that during the committee hearings he said that the Prime Minister did not have much to add to this particular bill nor any information regarding it. When asked if the
|Mr. Stevens.]
Prime Minister would appear before the committee, the President of the Treasury Board said the Prime Minister's time "is more valuable." This is recorded at page 38:17 of the committee proceedings.
The comment made by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) as recorded at page 38:23 of the committee proceedings is interesting by way of background information. When we were discussing whether the Prime Minister should appear at committee, the hon. member said, as translated:
-we also know, and many of us will not admit it, perfectly well there were frequent meetings between the Prime Minister of Canada and Mr. Drapeau; and we know perfectly well if the political context, since October 30, were different, if we had a majority government, Canada's commitment would have been on a much broader scale than it is now. We must admit it, and of course a compromise has to be found.
Perhaps unwittingly, or possibly with much more knowledge than many of us have in this chamber, I believe the hon. member put his finger on the question. If I may, I would like to trace through what is reported in Hansard, including documents that have been tabled, to show the contradictory position that has been taken by the government, particularly by the Prime Minister, with regard to this matter.
Before commencing to do so, I think it is wise to get our terms of reference accurate because in the quotations I intend to refer to we will find words such as "coinage", "financial", "special" and "contribution" used in very loose terms. It is wise to put on the record how the Oxford dictionary defines these words. "Financial" is defined as pertaining to revenue or money matters. "Money" is defined as current coin, coin and promissory documents representing it. "Coin" is defined as a piece of metal made into money by official stamp, metal money, money. "Contribute" is defined as to pay, furnish, that is, to contribute to a common fund. "Contribution" is defined as the act of contributing. Finally, "special" is defined as being of a particular kind, peculiar, not general.
In the records that have either been tabled in the House or printed in Hansard, the first reference to the 1976 summer Olympics is a letter to the then minister of national health and welfare from the mayor of Montreal, dated November 18, 1968. In that letter the mayor stated he had just read Mr. Munro's letter of October 25. He stated it seemed to sum up in substance the discussions they held in Mexico City on Friday, October 11, 1968. I am sorry we do not know what those discussions were. The mayor of Montreal then attempted to summarize what he considered to be the Olympic financing plans. In the body of the letter he stated:
We believe that the necessary expenses will be financed by public authorities, under existing legislation-
This I emphasize:
-or under legislation which could be passed anyway for all kinds of related purposes-
Was the mayor of Montreal a little psychic as far back as 1968 in referring to new legislation which was introduced in 1973 for all kinds of related purposes, namely, coins, stamps and lotteries? In another paragraph of the same letter he said:


-we do not feel we will have to ask governments at higher levels for special grants in order to hold the 1976 Olympics- We are not giving up, however, the right to any advantages which might be extended to us under existing or future legislation.
The words "future legislation" are repeated several times throughout the correspondence. I find it interesting that in all the government's correspondence to the Montreal organizers of the Olympics not once is the simple question asked: What future legislation do you mean? Is it that the federal authorities knew what the mayor meant? In any event, the Olympic organizers always qualified their statements by saying they wished to keep their option open concerning future legislation.
We then come to two more letters. One is dated May 21, 1969, to which the Prime Minister habitually refers. It is a letter addressed to the mayor of Montreal, in which the Prime Minister states:
-since the federal government made major contributions for various installations in connection with Expo, and some of these can be used for the Olympic games, I am sure that you will understand that we cannot provide any financial support for the organization of the games or for its publicity.
Next is a letter sent to the president of the International Olympic Committee, dated the same day, in which the Prime Minister said:
The Government of Canada warmly supports the application of the city of Montreal-
I note that in this letter he very carefully did not put a rider or qualification on any support that might be going to the city of Montreal. Apparently, the original of the letter sent to the president of the International Olympic Committee was lost. Later, the Prime Minister conveniently supplied a new original copy so that the Olympic file would be complete. Presumably, in 1969 the Olympic committee put a fair amount of stock in the letter from the Prime Minister. I would also point out that the words used are "financial support". I also refer to their Oxford dictionary definition. On January 15, 1970, the mayor of Montreal wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:
I thank you for giving your official support to our application to host the 1976 Olympic summer games.
I wish to refer to what is recorded in Hansard during this period. On January 22, 1970, the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of consumer and corporate affairs said, as recorded at page 2729 of Hansard:
Montreal did not request direct financial assistance and therefore no commitment has been given to them . . .
Montreal will be seeking indirect financial support under either existing legislation or legislation that might exist in the future concerning urban renewal and public housing.
I emphasize that nowhere did Mr. Drapeau speak about future legislation being restructed to urban renewal and public housing. On March 17, 1970, as recorded at page 5111 of Hansard, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) as to what role the federal government is playing in assisting both Vancouver and Montreal is their Olympic bids, the Prime Minister said:
-this is a rather complicated and lengthy question to answer ... But until a decision is taken on the Olympics I do not think it is useful to make any further statements.
Olympic Bill
It is interesting to note that three years later in this House, on May 10 last, in answer to a similar question by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er) the Prime Minister indicated that it was still a very complicated question and he felt the right hon. member for Prince Albert could not understand it. On May 20, 1970, as recorded at page 7105 of Hansard, documents relating to the Olympic games were tabled by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp). On May 11, 1971, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis), the Prime Minister replied:
In the case of Montreal it was that we were not prepared to assist financially in the organization and carrying out of the Olympics.
It is at this point in the tabled documents that I find an interesting letter from the mayor of Montreal to the Prime Minister in which the mayor requests that the services of His Excellency Roger Rousseau be made available to the Olympic organizing committee. He states it would not be necessary to announce the appointment before February, 1972, but that it would be desirable to obtain consent during the next few weeks. Shortly thereafter, as reported in Hansard at page 109 on February 22, 1972, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated in answer to a question:
There has been no request for financial assistance from Montreal for the 1976 Olympic Games. On the contrary, the city has always assured us that the games would not cost a cent to the federal government and we have always thought the city would keep its word.
On March 29 of the same year, as reported at page 1261 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said, again in answer to a question, that it had been agreed to both sides that the very substantial contribution made by the federal government at the time of Expo was sufficient, and that no special contribution was contemplated by the federal government for the games. At page 1262 he said:
There is not special contribution contemplated by the federal government for the games.
Yet we find that on November 25, 1971, the Prime Minister had sent a letter to the mayor replying to the November 4, 1971, letter and saying:
The Canadian government gladly agrees to make available to you the services of Mr. Rousseau ... It seems logical to me that Mr. Rousseau's salary should continue to be absorbed by the federal government after he assumes his new duties.
I understand that his salary of $30,000 per year is still being paid by the federal government. On August 15, 1972, we find a further letter from the Prime Minister to the mayor in which he states:
The Government of Canada cannot help but be concerned about the international implications of a project such as the Olympic
games.
He went on to say his officials had indicated that there could be a deficit. Generally, the letter expresses concern as to what was taking place in Montreal and how the Olympic expenditures were to be financed. I then find Mr. Rousseau, Chairman and Commissioner General, writing three letters to the Prime Minister, dated November 17, 1972, in which he attempts to clarify three points, namely, the question of the coinage, the question of the stamps and the question of the lottery. He says his committee would like the Prime Minister to authorize and prepare federal
5996


Olympic Bill
legislation to make it possible to do the coin issue, etc. He felt it would make sufficient profit, based upon the experience, in similar circumstances, of Germany, to cover expenses. On parliament's return, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) said, as reported in Hansard of January 9, 1973, at page 88:
Mr. Speaker, the position of the federal government has not changed from that stated by the Prime Minister in the House some time ago.
Then there is a very interesting letter dated January 20, 1973, from Mr. Rousseau which reads as follows:
I felt it would be useful to review briefly the financial thinking which has always accompanied the various developments relative to the Olympic games.
He says the committee hopes to have recourse to all existing and future legislation and believes it is now imperative that a decision be made and that, to use his words, "this delay cannot be further prolonged." Then he said:
The procedures to follow have also been largely studied with persons authorized, respectively, by the Postmaster General and the Minister of Supply (summer and fall of 1972). They are easy, realistic and effective.
On January 18 we find the Minister of State for Urban Affairs saying there had been some requests of a nonfinancial nature from the organizing committee. He went on to admit that the non-financial items concerned coins, stamps, and things of that sort. He may call them nonfinancial, but that is not the way the Oxford dictionary defines them.
On January 25, in answer to a question by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Prime Minister again stated the federal government would not make any special financial aid available to Montreal. In fact, he said, Mayor Drapeau's statements had confirmed his understanding that there was no commitment nor any request that the federal government make any special contribution available for the holding of the games. It is particularly interesting to note that on January 23 the Prime Minister had written to Mayor Drapeau stating, in light of Mr. Rousseau's letter to him of January 20, 1973:
My colleagues and I are greatly concerned about the assumptions which appear to have been made as to the extent of the federal government services which would be provided.
The Prime Minister said it would not be prudent to accede to any "request for federal. . . revenue schemes . .. such as Olympic Coins" without knowing how costs are going to be covered without direct federal involvement. The Prime Minister's concern apparently arose after the Rousseau letter to which I have referred. I would point out that in answering questions, the Prime Minister referred to the fact that he had received a letter from Mr. Rousseau from which he was satisfied that the Montreal group understood the federal position, though he had sent the letter on January 23 stating that he was alarmed. He then asked for guarantees with respect to financial responsibility in case a deficit should arise.
In this connection, three letters have been tabled, one from the Prime Minister of Quebec, one from Mayor Drapeau and one from Mr. Rousseau. In effect, these letters state: If you give us the cash we shall not come against

you for any future deficit. Each of the three letters contained a proviso that unless the federal government agreed to give the net proceeds from the coinage and the stamp issues, the federal government would presumably be required to cover any deficit. I was pleased to hear the President of Treasury Board agree, in answer to a question by me, that he would secure from these three gentlemen an assurance that upon the passage of this bill they would at least recognize that the provisos they mentioned in their letters of January 31 and February 1 have been met by the federal government.
A financial analysis was produced by the government on January 31 in which it was indicated that the deficit might amount to $172 million. It was also pointed out that of a total projected budget for the Olympics of $310 million, the cost of the main arena complex would amount to some $182 million. This is, of course, a major portion of the projected cost, and I would point out that the convertible roof for the arena is not even required as far as the Olympics are concerned.
a (1530)
Coming back to Hansard, in spite of this type of correspondence, the Prime Minister stuck to his story on January 29. Again, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), the Prime Minister said that the Olympics would not cost the Canadian government a penny. He went on to state, on January 31, at page 831:
-we are simply waiting for some valid assurance not only from a political point of view but from a legal point of view that the Canadian taxpayer will not be the backer in the final analysis.
As has been said, he did receive three letters which, from a legalistic point of view, really say nothing. They simply say that provided the government does certain things, namely, give the Olympic corporation the cash, it will not hold the government responsible for any resulting deficit. In spite of that, on February 2, against a deadline of February 3 when a presentation had to be made in Europe to the International Olympic Committee, he indicated finally that he was satisfied to go ahead with some legislation. That brings us to today. Perhaps I should touch upon one other point. It is interesting to note that on May 10, in answer to what I thought was a very relevant and direct question by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, the Prime Minister gave what I felt was an extremely misleading answer. The question by the right hon. member for Prince Albert is found at page 3611 and reads as follows:
Does it not amount in fact to the people of Canada having to put up, because they will not receive the benefit of the coinage, some $200 million by indirect instead of direct contribution?
The Prime Minister answered:
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no, but 1 think the fact that it was asked proves, indeed, that the complexity of the question is not understood by the right hon. gentleman.
I think what I have related is an unfortunate tale to have to relate to this House. It is difficult to understand how the Prime Minister of a country like Canada could so systematically attempt to create the impression he is not going to contribute to a project, that he is not in any way going to give financial assistance or special aid, yet does exactly that. I believe there is an answer owing by the


Prime Minister to the country. My point is that this is not a question of whether the Olympics is good or bad, or whether Montreal should receive this type of assistance but, rather, it is a question as to whether it is right for any government to be so deceitful about participation in a plan. At some stage do they not admit that they had planned for a significant period of time to do exactly what we have under consideration today?
As I said at the beginning, I believe as members of this House we have to accept reality. We have been led into a situation which is unfortunate. It sets a precedent that I feel will be repeated. In fact, if we read the letter from Mr. Rousseau we find he points out that as one of the advantages of his scheme is that it can be used to finance all kinds of various projects throughout the country he referred to the coinage seigniorage scheme.
We must accept the fact that our Prime Minister got us into this spot. If he wanted to make a grant for the Olympics in Montreal, I wish he had had the courage to say so by introducing whatever estimate he wanted in this House. It is my belief he would have received general support. He did not choose that route, and now having committed us in the name of Canada, we in the opposition had little alternative but to review the provisions of this bill in an effort to determine, by questioning the various representatives who appeared before the committee, what in fact they planned. In that regard I must say most of us were disturbed with the lack of planning that had gone into this matter.
I was pleased that our members were able to propose and have accepted six significant amendments which now appear in the bill before us today. One of these amendments put a limit on the number of coins that may be issued, the limit being set at $450 million. The amendment also limited the maximum amount that may be turned over to the Olympic corporation. It is $260 million. The amendments also require that there be a six months' reporting to this House concerning coinage and related matters, and that if 60 members of the House so desire, they may have the matter debated in the House and referred to the committee.
The amendments dealt with two very great discrepancies in the bill. The first is the fact that the Government of Canada could have been in the position, with the original wording of the bill, to have to issue coinage at a net consideration, which would have resulted in the coinage selling for less than face value. We now have a provision in one of our amendments which prevents that. We have a further provision that ensures that there cannot be side deals, indirect concessions, bonuses or kickbacks, whatever you like to call them, which would have the effect of allowing some persons to buy these coins at a discount.
We also have an amendment which specifically spells out the term "philatelic products" to make sure these are better defined. Finally, there is a provision which requires the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to call in any coins if he feels there is a circulation problem. As long as the Olympic corporation is in operation when the coins are called in, we have an assurance from the President of the Treasury Board and from representatives who appeared before the committee that a charge-back would be made
Olympic Bill
against the Olympic corporation to cover any net loss as a result of the call-back of the coins.
There was one point that came up subsequent to the committee hearings. We have heard rumours that the Olympic organizers are contemplating the issue of privately minted coinage which might appear to be Olympic coinage. I have taken this matter up with the President of the Treasury Board, who has assured me that he will see to it that this type of coinage will not be issued if it would in any way result in confusion within or outside Canada between legal Canadian Olympic coinage and Olympic coinage which has no value as legal tender.
In short, I believe the committee has made the best of a poor situation. It is unfortunate that something which should be a great national event, the 1976 summer Olympics, has been the subject of this indirect and deceitful type of financing. I see no reason why this nation could not openly finance any project that this or any provincial parliament felt desirable, yet for reasons known only to the Prime Minister and the government they have systematically attempted to mislead the House and the public concerning their true intent. It was not necessary. I hope no government in Canada will stoop so low again. But faced with the reality, as we are today, I feel we have no alternative but to support the bill. However, I would emphasize that we should support it as amended.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, before the bill under consideration was introduced in the House, all parties, I think, had the opportunity to meet with His Worship Mayor Jean Drapeau, as well as the Commissioner General for the Olympic games, His Excellency, Mr. Rousseau. When they came to Ottawa, they met with representatives of practically all parties. I personally received them in my office, where I was told that even the New Democratic members supported their project.
When Mr. Drapeau came to Ottawa with Mr. Rousseau, both unfolded their project for the Olympics, and I think they seemed responsible people who were conversant with this matter. After having set forth their self-financing project, they asked for assistance from Ottawa. They did not come to beg from Ottawa funds that would be taken out of the federal treasury itself to be spent in Montreal. They came to suggest a plan studied by experts, and designed to ensure the funding of the Olympics.
Now, Bill C-196 mentions three projects: first, a national lottery, which would be held in all provinces; secondly, the issue of postal stamps which would enable the City of Montreal or COJO to make 2-cent profit per stamp, and thirdly, the issue of commemorative Olympic coins designed for collectors and which would be on sale throughout the world.
Yesterday, I heard the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) say that this would be a complete fiasco. He based his argument on this fiasco of Canada's centennial. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no possible comparison between the centennial which was a national celebration and in no way an international event as the Olympic Games will be, when we will greet people from all countries. As regards Canada's centennial, the hon. member for Timiskaming said that we had, I think, sold 3,500,000 coins and that the
5998


Olympic Bill
Olympic Games would require the coinage of 65 million coins.
Everyone knows, Mr. Speaker-if they do not, I do-that following the centennial, we have received orders for coins and we had all sorts of trouble getting any. We ran short of series, for instance, that were being asked. I got countless telephone calls and letters asking me how to go about getting those Canadian centennial commemorative coins.
In Germany, during the last Olympic Games, there was also a shortage of those coins and I believe the Olympic Games authorities, the mayor of Montreal and Mr. Rousseau went to Europe and here and there throughout the world to determine whether it might be possible to sell those coins to collectors and the general public. Mayor Drapeau tells us it might be possible to finance the Olympic Games through the sale of coins minted on that occasion. So, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Olympic Games constitute, for Montreal and the whole country, an excellent means of acquainting millions of people throughout the world with Canada.
In 1967, 52 million persons went to Expo. They stimulated commerce and encouraged Canadians in general, but especially Montrealers, Torontonians and westerners. We took advantage of our trip to Montreal to visit Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, and I think that the Olympic Games will provide us with a similar opportunity.
We hear a lot about the losses resulting from Expo 67 in Montreal, but nobody mentions the revenue it provided, the economic development it fostered in Canada. Before Expo, Mr. Speaker, we did not have the highway system we have now; there was no subway in Montreal. Thanks to Expo, Montreal developed remarkably. By way of consequence, this helped even Toronto and Winnipeg. Even the riding of the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) may have benefited. Mr. Speaker, if we consider only the liabilities and do not take into consideration how it benefited the people, our assessment is all wrong. Have we taken into account, for instance, the income tax paid by the citizens of Montreal and other Canadians who benefitted from Expo? That was never done. No one ever said either what Canada gained through income tax. The same thing will happen with the Olympic Games in 1976.
I realize that the possibilities would be greater if we had another system for financing the Olympic Games, which, whether we like it or not, will in the end have their justification. Vancouver had applied for the Olympic Games. Denver, in the U.S., and other cities in the rest of the world, including Moscow, made the same application. Why? Because it is an opportunity to make the city and the country where the Games are held better known.
When I visit France and ask the French if they know where Canada is situated, they answer they think it is close to China, which is far from the truth. If we invite them and if they come to visit us, they will find out that we are quite far from China. In fact, we are closer to France than to China.
Mr. Speaker, the Olympic Games will benefit Montreal and the whole of Canada; they will attract visitors from all parts of the world.

This bill deals with a lottery. I am not what they call a gambler, but when one is against lotteries, one does not get any money in his pockets. It is profitable for the one who wins, but many have to chip in, and everybody knows that. Even when lotteries did not exist, people used to gamble. The Mini-Loto, the Super-Loto, Loto-Quebec and all other "lotos" in Quebec bring in profits; people just love to buy tickets. Even the Irish sweepstake operates wonderfully in Canada. I bet the hon. member for Timis-kaming buys tickets for the Irish sweepstake. Instead of buying these tickets and sending his money to Ireland, he will be buying Canadian lottery tickets to finance the Olympic Games or part of them. He will thus promote something in this country. But yesterday, he spoke against the lottery-not against the Irish sweepstake which is not there to help the financing of the Montreal Olympic Games.
And now, the postage stamps. Nobody will be required to buy them. But if we do buy some, two cents per stamp will go to COJO. But we will not have to buy any. We will still be able to use the postage stamps showing the Western wheat fields or those in honour of Sir John A. Macdonald, at the regular price. But stamp collectors will buy a lot of those on the occasion of the Montreal Olympic Games.
If the hon. member for Timiskaming or his colleagues of the NDP do not want to buy any stamps, let them not buy any, but let them not prevent others from buying some if they wish to do so. It seems to me it is as simple as that. And, at the same time, we help the Olympic Games.
Concerning the coins, they are afraid too many will be issued; the hon. member said yesterday "out of a windbag-or something like that", coins based on nothing. But those who will be buying coins will indirectly contribute $2, I think, to COJO. These people will keep the coins and the money now in circulation will not be devalued. Those who will have them are not going to take anything from anyone. However, these coins will constitute a souvenir for their purchasers all over the world.
During centennial year coins were selling at higher cost than their value. We bought them just the same; this has not thrown the Canadian economy out of kilter. My set is at home and I am not using it. So it does not create inflation at all. And all those who have kept those coins obviously do not use them; so this is not what creates inflation or unbalances the economy of a country like Canada.
But the important point, the capital point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Olympics will be held in Canada, in the City of Montreal. Instead of objecting to it, we should with one voice congratulate the mayor of Montreal who brought them here. He really did and God knows how he devoted himself, travelled, spent his time, his money, everything, to put Montreal and Canada on the map.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, even at some cost, it is worth to make Canada known and to show the entire world that we too, a small nation of 20 million inhabitants, can hold the Olympic Games which, I think, will attract millions of people and enable Canada to show her great hospitality, her intellectual, physical, and material development, while the nations that do not know Canada today will have this unique opportunity of making themselves known.


That is why my colleagues and myself strongly support the request of Mayor Drapeau and the Organizing Committee of tfre Olympic Games. I suggest that the members stop opposing a bill that will enable Canada to be better known and have a stronger voice not only from the economic point of view, but also from the Olympic Games point of view, and to show that we, as every other nation, are interested in sports.
We saw not so long ago the Russian hockey team give us a surprise here in Canada, with regard to our national sport; we were almost beaten by people whom we thought were second rate. We found out that people learn how to play hockey outside Canada, and we learned it the hard way.
But now, in turn, we can show the whole world and our own people in Montreal that we are not only hockey players, but that we can train in other sports that our young athletes are first rate, enterprising, that they have achieved something. Those young people, I am convinced, will thank Mayor Drapeau of Montreal, Mr. Rousseau and COJO, and will be grateful to the Canadian Parliament for Bill C-196 which provides for the self-financing of the Olympic Games, not at our expense, but through a sensible program.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reassuring the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) that my party is not opposed to the Olympics, nor is it opposed to sports generally. Had he read the remarks I made on June 28, he would know that I dealt with a number of the matters that he raised. Certainly I am as concered as he is about the success of the games. I will be as proud as he and all Canadians were of Expo. That is not the point of the argument. If that is what it appears to him, then he missed the point.
I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). He spent a great deal of time attacking the irresponsibility of my political party, pointing out with a great deal of force and, I suppose, with a bit of logic some inconsistencies in our position. He interrupted the debate yesterday to suggest that we had somehow switched our position since early February. That is true: we have. That was admitted by me when I spoke on second reading on June 28, less than a month ago. I suppose it is the height of egotism to quote myself, but I said on that date:
We recognize also that our opposition to Bill C-196 is a departure from the position I, personally, took last February in my response to the Prime Minister's statement on motions, which at that time was intended to assure the House that any deficit accruing from the games would not be borne by the federal government.
I make no apology for this. I think we would be irresponsible to pursue blindly a course we felt was wrong merely because in a quick response to a statement on motions we committed ourselves to God knows what deficit, approximately $500 million, which is as much as we spend per year on post-secondary education in this country, now to be spent on a two-week extravaganza, a two-week carnival of sweat. I hope my attitude would be no different if the same kind of financing scheme were dreamed up to finance the games kind be they held in
Olympic Bill
Montreal, Vancouver or any other city. Let us get that straight.
I think the hon. member for York-Simcoe did an excellent job on the committee. Bui he was trapped. I realize he was trapped because a very prominent member of his party had pretty well committed them to what I think is a bad deal. As a matter of fact, his concluding remarks indicated that it was a bad deal and that they were going to attempt to make the best of it. The first response was to attack the irresponsibility of my party. I reject that, Mr. Speaker. What it exhibits to me is the well known psychological phenomenon associated with guilt, known as reversal formation-blame somebody else for your own problems.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe said that we have to accept reality. That sounds like a quotation from my words of February 6, but I no longer agree with that; and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that some other places no longer agree with it either. Denver, Colorado, did not agree with the winter Olympics: the population turned it down. And it was not to cost $500 million or $750 million, but a mere $3'/2 million. That figure is pale in comparison with the amount we are considering. My party was the only one consistently to oppose this bill on second reading as vigorously and as vociferously as we could, and through committee as well. We intend to vote against it on third reading. I am only sorry that we were not here to vote against it in a standing vote on second reading.
My colleagues, members of the government and those members of the opposition who are locked in-they might as well be members of the government-on this issue have a right to ask why we oppose the bill. I will tell those hon. members why. I cannot help their embarrassment; that is their own problem and has nothing to do with me. I think it would be fair to say that our position on this matter is based on the following grounds. First of all, we take the position that if the Olympic games are worth funding at all, they are worth funding properly through an outright federal grant. If they are not worth funding that way, then they are not worth funding by any method, especially by a gimmicky, half-baked assortment of coins, stamps and lotteries.
When we spoke on February 6 we had no idea how the funding was to be done, nor had anybody else. Nobody knows, not even the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) or the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). About 80 per cent of the Olympics is to be financed by this gimmick. We think that is ludicrous, patent nonsense. But 80 per cent of the Olympic financing depends on the coin scheme alone. Nothing has convinced me or my party that a deficit can be avoided.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has assured us that there will be no additional request for federal support. The mayor of Montreal and the Premier of Quebec have assured him of that. But if there is a deficit and the federal government does not pick it up, who does? The deficit will be borne by those Canadians who live in Montreal and Quebec, those people who by and large have an income of about half the national average but who have twice the


Olympic Bill
unemployment experienced in other provinces. We are going to ask those Canadians to pick up the deficit.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mark Willson Rose: My colleague says that we will do it eventually. I would rather do it now. If it is worth while, let us do it now; let us not get ourselves involved in this kind of nonsense. The analysts working for the President of the Treasury Board predicted at the committee hearings a deficit of $150 million to $170 million. At that time I asked the minister whose analysis he would be more inclined to accept, that of COJO or that of his own department. I think he is loyal to his staff; he replied that he preferred the response of his own officials.
We are committed to a downhill run with such momentum that it cannot be stopped. Well, Denver stopped it. I do not think the Olympics necessarily need be stopped, but I think we need a much better financing foundation. Members of the opposition are not reassured at all, but they are muzzled. They have the same misgivings they have always had, but they are committed.
According to the Postmaster General, this scheme contemplates the minting of $450 million worth of gold and silver coins over the next four years, roughly half of which are to be sold overseas. All the silver coins circulated in Canada since confederation have amounted to only $317 million, according to the master of the Mint. We are going to put all that extra coinage into circulation, which will mean the importation of 51 million troy ounces of silver in a world desperately short of silver for industrial purposes. We are going to make souvenir coins and thus bury the silver after we have spent time taking it out of the ground. This is legal tender which will go into circulation. It will cause trouble to everybody, including COJO. This is my first reservation.
My second reservation is that the priorities are all wrong. I am sorry that the hon. member for Temis-camingue has left the Chamber, because he made reference to something which I should like to correct. We feel that the spending priorities in this connection are all wrong. The amount involved is $500 million. Somebody will say it is really only $350 million, but the Germans started out at $152 million and ended up at $700 million. Also, on second reading the President of the Treasury Board said there could be some escalating costs over the four years, so I think $500 million is reasonably conservative. One per cent of $500 million-that is, $5 million- would build 100 community swimming pools in the city of Montreal for the youth whom the hon. member for Temis-camingue is so concerned about. They are desperately short of recreation facilities in Montreal and could use 100 outdoor pools, not necessarily of Olympic size. That is why we question the spending priorities.
I mentioned earlier that Mr. Drapeau and Mr. Bourassa would pick up the deficit. But how do we know that either of these hon. gentlemen will be in office in 1976? We have no assurance of that. These gentlemen are honourable in all ways, but we do not know whether they will still be in office in 1976. We are going to be asked to help with the deficit, and I for one want to help; make no mistake about that. Across the river is the city of Hull. For the last ten years that city has been trying to get an indoor swimming

pool. The city officials recently cancelled a $12 million recreation complex on the ground that there is no money for it. They need $12 million. The Olympics want $500 million.
Let us for the moment forget about pollution, slums, traffic and problems such as providing plumbing and preventing illiteracy in Montreal. The point is that there is no money in the budget for the city of Hull. They go to the province and are told there is no money. They go to the federal government and are told there is no money. Other communities across the country are in the same difficulty. If they want to play ice hockey and ask for money to build a rink, they are told, sorry, but there is no money from the federal government; why not do it with volunteers? If they need a stadium for a track team, the answer is that there is no money. They go to Sports Canada who say, sorry, we are not in the business of capital financing; we can help with coaching, but not with money.
~
Yet we are to spend $500 million in this area. Why could we not spend $500 million to meet Canadian recreational needs, raising the money as the money for the Olympics is to be raised? Why should we not put out special coins in order to supply every community with recreational amenities such as stadiums, community pools and that sort of thing? But no, we do not do that because, we say, we do not have any money. That is nonsense.


Mr. Peters:: What about hockey?


Mark Willson Rose: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has mentioned hockey. That is one of the sports at which we do well. Why? Is it because we spend a great deal of money on rinks? No. We are a northern country, and our kids skate on rivers and ponds. Yet in every community kids get up at four o'clock in the morning, with their coaches, because there is not enough ice time to allow them to play during the day. We lack these facilities. If we build stadiums, pools and tracks, I am sure that in ten years we could be as good at other Olympic sports as we are at hockey. That is why we question the kinds of priorities represented by this bill. We are fed up with this attitude of the government.
The Fitness and Amateur Sport Act has been in existence since 1962. Since that time some $60 million has been budgeted for the purpose of fitness and amateur sport in Canada. In the last ten years only half of the allocated budget has been taken up. Every year $5 million has been devoted tc this area, which means that roughly $60 million could have been spent. Yet only about $30 million has been taken up. That being so, why is the allocation to be raised to $9.8 million this year? Some people are a bit cynical and suspicious about these things. The Fitness and Amateur Sport Act entitles the government to make special arrangements with certain provinces, so there may be more to this iceberg than the tip we see at the moment. I realize that is "insinnuendo".


An hon. Member:: That's a good word; leave it in Hansard.


Mark Willson Rose: I meant insinuation. As well, we do not have all the necessary information. The President of the Trea-


sury Board assured us that each province would get its fair share of the $9.8 million, and I have no reason to doubt that. The act entitles the provinces to that. I suggest, however, that as one province may have entered into an agreement under this act, the other provinces may get their fair share-but perhaps not for several years. That amount may not be split right down the middle in any one year. I will leave it at that.
My third misgiving is this. We were denied information in committee. The hon. member for York-Simcoe made much of the NDP voting with the government against what I regard as the questionable political manoeuvre of bringing the Prime Minister before our committee. I do not know that the Prime Minister could have added a great deal. Of course, I would not have opposed his appearing if he had wanted to give us information. What troubled me was that only the Postmaster General, the master of the Mint, and the President of the Treasury Board were called as witnesses. Any moves for calling Mayor Drapeau, the Green Space people of Montreal, Bruce Kidd or other athletes who might be opposed to this bill were disallowed. We even moved to have the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) testify as an expert, but were not allowed to call him.
We wanted proper information and were prevented from getting it in committee. I do not know why. The thing is that the statement on motions had been made on February 6. Why did it take so long? Why did we need to wait from February 6 until the hot days of July before the committee could consider this bill? Why were we put on the block and bludgeoned into processing this bill? I do not know. Well, I do. It was getting warm, summer was here, and we were expected to get on with it. Yet motions for the appearance of witnesses were turned down uniformly by a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives on the committee. The motion by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) for limiting the number of coins that could be put into the pay envelopes of poorly-paid Montreal civic workers was turned down by the Liberals and Conservatives on the committee. I am not saying the Conservatives did not put forward good criticisms: they put forward excellent ones but did not back them up.


An hon. Member:: They were in bed with the Liberals.


Mark Willson Rose: I am not worried about that; that is not my concern. They are a party of principle, and I wish they would back their convictions with their votes. I do not know what brought about the change of heart. I only know one thing, that the committee was absolutely deadlocked on Thursday two weeks ago. When we came back, by Tuesday night all the amendments went flying through. I do not know how it happened. I think the Conservatives were trying to make parliament work. Anyway, all the Conservative motions were passed.
The Conservatives tried to make a good deal this afternoon of their putting this and that through in committee, yet they did not ever question the principle of the bill. They took what I termed the cornflakes approach, accepting the prize in the cornflakes package. That was their approach to funding the Olympics. They were not against the bill. They limited the total expenditure package to $450 million and wanted to limit the income to $240 million. I
Olympic Bill
do not know why they were interested in limiting the net returns on these sales.
Hon. members to my right will demand reports in future, and want to include in the bill what I term a 60-member review clause. They stole that idea from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who introduced it in connection with the corporations bill. Those hon. members know a lot about corporations. In any event, they did not really question the principle of the bill, and it is the principle that my party attempted to question. I want to make that clear.
We must not forget that we were told this scheme will not cost the federal government any money. Let me remind hon. members that the basic cost to Canadians, the seed money, if you like, to start this venture is $100 million. There is about $50 million for housing, $27 million for security and $25 million for broadcasting. If you add the seigniorage for $250 million which the government will not get from the sale of these coins, that brings you pretty close to $350 million. So don't suggest this will not cost us anything, because that is misleading. Such suggestions mislead the public and I think the public will wake up to this one of these days.
In the second reading debate my party was concerned, as were other hon. members, about the lack of concrete planning. The Postmaster General and the President of the Treasury Board admitted before the committee that they did not know how things would work out. They suggested that in the matter of the coins we are breaking new ground. They were in the dark and did not know what would happen. They are probably pushing on like lemmings, to be drowned in the sea of their own optimism. I do not mind so long as they do not take the Canadian people with them. I would object to that because it would be most unfair.
My party is concerned in case the Olympic village funded by Central Mortgage and Housing becomes a ghetto of the future. We know that at least 70,000 citizens of Montreal back the Green Space committee which sent in a petition objecting to the present location of the village. I know that Dr. Goldbloom, the municipal affairs minister of Quebec, is also concerned.


An hon. Member:: They should fill a lake.


Mark Willson Rose: I don't know if they will fill a lake or chop an island in two. In any event, my party is also concerned about the $27 million worth of armed forces and police security which will turn Montreal into an armed camp for two weeks in 1976. The security personnel will not be there to protect us from the citizens of Montreal but they will be required, hon. members may agree, if they recall what happened in Munich and in Mexico City. Security forces are needed because people like the Black September gang use these large spectaculars to make some kind of point which their warped minds can understand but mine cannot. Hon. members know this will happen: They know the place will be an armed camp. We would be concerned about these things happening, whether the Olympics were being held in Vancouver, Toronto or Halifax. It does not have anything to do with the location; that is irrelevant. It is still a bad deal.


Olympic Bill
It has not escaped the notice of many members, including some members opposite, that leading editorial and sports writers have applauded the stand of the New Democratic Party. This is not confined to English language newspapers such as the Globe and Mail and the Star. It includes such prestigious French language journals as La Presse and Le Devoir. These editorials in themselves do not make the NDP position right. However, I think it is. Truth is not a matter of how many people believe in something. The fact that we have this type of support indicates that the stand we have taken, regardless of its linguistic overtones, is right.
I do not know how much time I have left. It is fair to ask what our party proposes as alternatives. There are basically two alternatives. We want a less expensive Olympics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: At the moment, there are perhaps only five cities in the world that could host an Olympics of this magnitude. This rules out many countries such as the developing countries of Africa and Asia. They cannot afford it. We would like a less extravagant Olympics. We are prepared to openly grant up to $200 million. We do not want it to be financed in the same way as paying off a church mortgage.
The second point is that, for reasons of security, we feel the Olympic games should be dispersed among the cities of central Canada such as Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. Facilities already exist in these places. There are college campuses with dormitories and stadiums. It is not necessary to build a stadium costing $178 million which will only be for the benefit of the NFL or the Expos baseball team.
I regret we have to stand alone on this issue. There has been excellent criticism from the party to my right, and by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). I am sorry the misgivings and criticisms voiced have gone virtually unheeded. I am sorry the hon. member for Matane could not get the help of his colleagues on this matter. This event will not do anything for the average citizen of Montreal. However, he will have to pay for it. He probably will not even attend the games. He will be able to watch it on television, but he could do that if they were located in outer Mongolia.
Companies will probably purchase tickets in large blocks to be given to their friends, as is the case with hockey games and the National Arts Centre. They give these tax free gifts to the boys for promotional purposes. The average Canadians will be lined up from the Ottawa River to Vancouver in an attempt to get tickets.
I share the hopes of many Liberals and Conservatives that I am dead wrong on this question. I hope I am dead wrong.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I just hope you are dead.


Mark Willson Rose: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is not serious in his hope for my instant mortality, or is it immortality? I certainly feel the same toward him. Maybe a few severe chest pains would help him see reality and
[Mr. Rose.)
how close we are to being involved in this ludicrous nonsense.
All Canadians were proud of Expo. I am sure they will be proud of the Olympic games. We agree on that. However, that is not the point. We do not like the method of funding the games. In spite of the Treasury Board's analysis, I hope the estimates of the President of the Treasury Board and the Postmaster General, who are sitting benignly surrounded by silver coins, are correct and mine are wrong. It would be a pleasure to hop out of my cozy bed and have my place taken by members of the official opposition on this: it would be a nice change.
For my efforts I have been called a racist and a bigot. An hon. member called me something else which is not parliamentary. These things may have some relevance, but I do not think anything in our record warrants that kind of appellation being applied to me or my party. I regret the government saw fit to include only Francophones on this committee. I think the linguistic overtones were enhanced by that decision, and I am sorry about it. Recently, the CBC took a poll with regard to the acceptance of the Montreal Olympics. It showed that 80 per cent of the people in the province of Quebec are in favour of the Olympics. When a second question was asked, whether they would be in favour of the Olympics if there was a deficit, 80 per cent were against.
I would love to have been in cabinet and overheard the discussions on this bill. I hope the optimist will be accurate and the pessimists will be wrong. If we are going to have the Olympics, we want them to be a success. We have outlined our objections in detail. I am sorry we did not have a more searching examination in committee. I am sorry we had to be dependent upon the gentlemen I mentioned earlier. However, I feel we have at last had some opportunity to examine this question and, on the basis of that examination, to expose its faults. On the basis of that examination we are voting against the bill.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I will speak very briefly for fear of being unjustly accused of unduly delaying the passing of this bill.
Now that we are about to dispose of the motion that the bill on the 1976 Olympic Games be read the third time, we must not once again forget that since the end of the 1972 Munich Games the whole world, and especially the younger generation, have an appointment in Montreal in 1976. I would like the most incredulous of us to know that, in accordance with the spirit of the Olympic movement, many developing countries will be participating in the 1976 Games. We will see on the podium the greatest champions in all the disciplines and undoubtedly athletes from underprivileged nations who, because of their achievements and their long training, will find the required energy and courage to have faith in the building of their countries. And would it be only for them, the most sceptical among us should consider and reconsider their judgment about the opportunity and advisability of holding these Olympic Games.
As far as I am concerned, to reiterate what I stated clearly during the debate on second reading, I believe in the Olympic Games. I believe in the 1976 Montreal Olym-


pic Games and I cannot accept the pessimistic utterances of some NDP members.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we must commend however the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) who tacitly at least did not seem to endorse the views of some of his colleagues and did not readily yield to the temptation to disparage Montreal, its mayor, Quebec and the Olympic Games.
In the same breath, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to single out the Leader of the Social Credit (Mr. Caouette) who this afternoon in an enthusiastic and vigorous speech expressed his deep feelings about the Olympic Games and has undoubtedly impressed all members by clearly saying what most of us believe at the bottom of our hearts.
Mr. Speaker, the 1976 games will leave in Montreal and throughout the country some new infrastructure components and more particularly a genuine infrastructure for amateur sport and physical fitness.
Because of the Games a stadium and related facilities will be built capable of accommodating in addition to the professional baseball, football, soccer, and other teams, record crowds coming from all corners of the world to participate in various conventions, world-wide rallies which will benefit the whole country.
Because of the Games and for the very benefit of its industrial and commercial institutions, or even for the benefit of any one of its levels of government, severely schooled in new challenges, Canada will have acquired modern techniques and human skills.
Because of the Games, and somewhat as a result and consequence of the 1967 World Exhibition, people or social groups from Panet Street in Montreal or Grande-Allee in Quebec City, from Matane or Saint-Hyacinthe, as well as Halifax or Vancouver will have taken a liking to opening up to the world and, as one could say, to having "windows fully opened on the world." They will have tried to make our problems, our inspirations known to others but also they will have learned to better appreciate the problems, inspirations and accomplishments of others and thanks to those international exchanges, a new spirit will evolve, a spirit that will inevitably have the effect of inspiring in its wake the development of elements of that new cultural, social and economic substructure and even the setting up of facilities likely to increase our means and add to the well-being of the community.
Because of the Games, Mr. Speaker, the people of Montreal who already have on Mount Royal one of the greatest natural green parks in the world will have recovered more than half of notorious ViauPark, the use of which, unfortunately, until now was restricted to a very few privileged people, who even at that had to be golfers. And perhaps here again, Mr. Speaker, the Games might have the consequential effect of increasing in Montreal and elsewhere in the country the number of green areas and above all the number of those who will truly want to use them for purposes of pure relaxation or as a place to do their physical fitness exercises.
Olympic Bill
Thanks to these games-and this is most important and certainly will be available to all citizens of our large country-a permanent substructure in the area of amateur sport and physical fitness will be set up throughout Canada. No doubt it will be from this long term result that we will be able to judge the opportunity and the wisdom of holding the Olympic Games in Canada in 1976.
Mr. Speaker, we live in a country where our professional sport is as much out of our control as our economy. I am convinced that with the representations made by our young people, the games of 1976 will force us, after the event to get out of this kind of amateurism of ours, in the area of amateur sport, an amateurism which is revealed by the absence of a real government policy on sports and spare time activities, by frictions in this area at the different provincial and federal jurisdiction levels, by the reluctance of the educational world, unfortunately by the lack of specialized instructors and highly qualified trainers.
Between now and 1976 the Games will at last give Canada as a whole the opportunity to discover a new kind of motivation and a reinforced determination to secure in the area of sports and spare time activities the qualified resources which will remain with us after 1976. These resources, strengthened by the fire of the Olympic flame, will enable young people from Point St. Charles or from other districts in Montreal, who live in houses without running water or bathtub, or shower, or whose father is unemployed, to have other option than drug or the lane "macadam". They will be encouraged to throw themselves wholeheartedly into pole jumping, javelin throwing or what have you. Mr. Speaker, I want to say here that before 1976 and afterwards, we will have to combine our efforts at the different levels of government to solve the unemployment problem, to check the constant increase in the cost of living, in food prices in particular, pharmaceuticals, clothing and housing. We will have to ensure that every Canadian, in Montreal and elsewhere, enjoy normal health conditions and, on a broader scope, that they all have equal opportunities to develop in life. But-and everyone without exception will likely admit it-they were not matters brought forth by the spirit of Bill C-196 as such and which it could solve or had to solve. For once, Mr. Speaker, politics can serve sport instead of using it. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to grasp this occasion firmly.
Given the 1976 Games, and this Bill C-196, let politics have a chance to serve sports. It can and must serve them, especially considering the fact that amateur sports, and even more so the Olympic Games, have a bearing on all the great problems that condition the future of our civilization: youth, the use of leisure, urbanization, environment and even medical research.
There is no doubt that resounding lessons, that will benefit all Canadians, will be learned because the Olympic Games will be held in Canada. Mr. Speaker, the social impact of the 1976 Games, a few aspects of which I have just pointed out, deserves our attention, but we should not forget their economic impact as well, which will be measured mainly by the increased flow of tourists throughout the country, not only while the Games are being held but long afterwards.
6004


Olympic Bill
These are arguments that reach much farther that national pride and international prestige. Those are arguments which, I am convinced, will stir in all Canadians a feeling of solidarity with the 1976 Games, and in that feeling of solidarity, the will to contribute to their success.
Commemorative coins, stamps, a national lottery, will all be as many opportunities for Canadians to say "yes", according to each individual's possibilities, to the 1976 Olympic Games. First, the promoters, then the Canadian people, must discharge their very special responsibility, that of proving to the world that from here on, the Olympic Games will be financially within the reach of the developing countries, whether they be African or Latin American.
In the course of the debate on second reading, as well as in a committee, during the exchanges of information and the introduction of amendments, everybody managed to throw light on and define this bill. Now, on third reading, I have no doubt that in every part of the nation, regardless of political affiliations, through their constant interest, and interventions, hon. members who represent those areas, who represent those political parties, hear testimony today to the national and truly Pan Canadian responsibility of the 1976 Games.
Let us make sure, Mr. Speaker, that once this legislation is passed, it will not become the sole responsibility of the present government, but that of Parliament as a whole and, consequently, let us be in our constituencies the promoters of the 1976 Games for the Canadian people.
Let us inform our constituents of the national challenge of 1976, of the costs of such a challenge, but also of the real and already anticipated benefits. Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, regardless of their province, their mother tongue and their culture, should be proud, as they are, I believe, to see their country be in 1976, the host and the crossroad of a world event which is essentially peaceful.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I make it a point to express a few thoughts on third reading of this very important bill. Since I have always taken an interest in recreational activities, I did not want to miss this opportunity to make a few comments.
On second reading, I have had the opportunity, as a good many other members, to make some comments on the bill designed to finance the Olympic Games of 1976 and, I regretted, of course, the mitigated part taken by the government. I would have hoped that, considering the national character of the games and the national and international participation in these games, Canadians would not hesitate to take the risk of making some profit or incurring deficits, and I realize at the stage of the third reading that while we are considering the possibility of financing the games, we are very careful not to commit ourselves in the event financial problems arise.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I say, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) pointed out earlier, if politics serve sports, perhaps the political context badly serves CO JO. I was very pleased to hear the comments of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, and I do not question for a moment his interest in the success of these games, not only for the benefit of the province of Quebec

but also for that of all participants, in whatever capacity they act, as spectators or as amateurs.
But I said that the political context could ill serve the interests and the possibilities of success of COJO because we know perfectly well that the government, on the one hand, found it a little embarrassing to open wide its doors to provide more assistance and, on the other, we also know that certain political parties are opposing it for other reasons, in attempting to shift the problem or in assuring themselves that Canadians will not have to pay a penny more that what the bill provides.
But we agree and we accept and we boast to whoever wants to listen that these events will be beneficial, which also constitutes a commitment, I think, by all Canadians, if we recognize-and we all do-the national character of the Olympic Games of 1976.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that there has been talks between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Mayor Drapeau of Montreal. It is also obvious that, after the elections held last October, it was embarrassing for the government to do more than it does.
It is also obvious that, unfortunately, political interests often take precedence over the interests of society. This has led the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) to say yesterday, on behalf of his party, that he would accept no other financial obligation than those described in the bill before us.
So, I think that, politically speaking, we are trying to protect some regions which would be less favourable than others to these Olympic Games, while we are showing eagerness in saying that those events are a national feature, and since we recognize it, we have to take part in those events and commit ourselves as Canadians.
I certainly deplore the position of the New Democratic Party which persisted in shifting its ground when maintaining that if all those millions were earmarked for housing, sewer services, infrastructures of all kinds, it would readily endorse the bill. We know perfectly well that the Olympic Games will take place, as other members were saying a moment ago, and that there still will be some problems in that area.
Some people are suggesting that the games will be a two-week affair, and that the millions involved are an unacceptable expense for Canadians, particularly if ever Quebecers had to shoulder a deficit as foreseen by the government.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we solved the issue by shifting the problem. On the contrary, these social or economic problems exist and will continue to exist but it will become possible to do more in the field of leisure as the Olympic Games will arouse a motivation which will last much longer than the two weeks of the games. Some regional and provincial leisure organizations are already in operation. The federation of leisure organization will operate better than ever and after the Olympic events these structures will continue to operate. I think it is an advantage and an honour for Canada to host the games. As Canada is a relatively young country compared with others, I think it will achieve remarkable success as it will have made sensitized not only the federal government but


also provincial governments, municipal organizations and municipalities themselves deeply aware of amateur sports.
Municipalities complain about the lack of necessary institutions, the lack of basic tools, the lack of educators, instructors and trainers. I think the motivation that young and also older people are already getting will prompt to vote the funds which will enable Canadians to improve their physical fitness.
We know the importance of being physically apt in our society today.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt that even if this bill is limited to the financing of the games, quite contradictory views have been expressed in committee and at the second and third reading stages. To come back to the position taken by the New Democratic Party, I do not want to forget the statement made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) following the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the involvement of the Federal government. Mention was made of it yesterday and I think that it is worth repeating. He said, and I quote: -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.
Since then, we have heard quite different stories. However, I am not at all surprised by the NDP's new position, considering that since last January 4, that party has often changed its mind and made sure that this legislation which might embarrass the government is adopted. I would even go so far as to say that if the Progressive Conservative Party was against this bill, the New Democratic Party would be for it. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that Canadians who have seen members of that party at work since the beginning of the session are very much impressed by their statements.
I regret that they tried to put Mayor Drapeau on trial or tarnish his reputation concerning his administration, because I feel that several political parties would have liked to be able to count on such a popular man with tremendous achievements to his credit. Of course, some people in Montreal will complain about not having such and such a service, but I think that Mayor Drapeau has done one extraordinary thing for Montreal: he put that city on the map so that is better known throughout the world, and the participation that we will witness in 1976 will be beneficial not only to Montreal, but also to all Canadian cities. We will be welcoming important visitors and I think that the economic impact will be worthwhile, because there will be opportunities of inviting people from abroad to come and visit us, and they will leave something as was the case with Expo '67.
Before concluding I would like to talk about the deficit which the government expected. Even if some members of COJO are rather optimistic towards the possibility of a deficit, nevertheless the responsibility of Quebecers should not be ignored. I think we should especially consider that such a situation could occur.
We know the present context and position of Quebec within Canada. Let us imagine for a moment that there will be a deficit and that Quebecers and Montrealers would be solely responsible for it.
Regional Economic Expansion Oddly enough, in the committee last week limits were put on the possibility of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret but I must interrupt the hon. member.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse)-Air Transport-Suggested provision of shuttle service between Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Exhibitions-Expo '74, Spokane, Washington- Reason for failure of Canada to have pavilion; the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard)-Canadian National- Quebec-Bilingualism	among passenger service
employees.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills; notices of motions, papers; public bills.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions through the usual channels and I think there is agreement to deal with notices of motions for the production of papers. If that is agreeable, we would call No. 79 standing in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). I understand that the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) wishes to move it on his behalf.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary. Is this agreed by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
[Transla tion]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi), for Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse), moved:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the contract and all documents relating to a grant by the Department of
26454-16 \
[Stage Direction]

Regional Economic Expansion
Regional Economic Expansion to the newspaper Le Soleil of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all my hon. colleagues very sincerely for allowing me to move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who had to attend the funerals of one of his brothers, and I take this opportunity to offer him my most heartfelt sympathy.
The motion now before us which I had the honour to move on behalf of the hon. member for Bellechasse has been on the Order Paper since February 21, 1973. It asks that the House order the ministry to issue all the documents relating to a grant offer which has reportedly been made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to the Corporation du journal Le Soleil of Quebec City. As this is a motion of public interest, I hope that I shall be supported by all my colleagues, so that the motion may be carried before 6 o'clock.
Mr. Speaker, it is neither on a sudden impulse that we are requesting the issue of these documents nor to satisfy our own curiosity. On the contrary, we aim at enlightening the Canadian people as to the way appropriations which are made available to the various departments are being used.
During recent days, through the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who made a long statement in the House and through the tabling of a green paper on conflicts of interest of ministers and members of Parliament, the government has tried to reassure the public concerning the honesty of ministers and members of Parliament who are responsible for the administration of public funds.
The government also tried to inform the public about the measures it intends to take to ensure the independence of its members against the economic dictatorship which exerts increasing pressures upon the political power, both at the legislative and executive level.
Lastly, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a long statement in which he put before Parliament the measures he intends to have accepted in order to prevent conflicts of interest.
Under the rules governing this House, hon. members are given extraordinary privileges based upon the principle of democracy. Among those privileges, there is the right for every member to control funds made available to the various departments of which the minister is responsible to Parliament. Consequently, it is reasonable and normal for a minister to reply to an enquiry made by a member. One may reply that the government set out criteria for the production of such papers that were published on March 15th, 1973. The general principle of those criteria is the following:
General Principle
To enable Members o£ Parliament to secure factual information about the operations of government to carry out their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible consistant with effective administration, the protection of the security of the state, rights to privacy and other such matters, government papers, documents and consultant reports should be produced on Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers unless falling within the categories outlined below in which case an exemption is to be claimed from production.

Following that, we find a list of exemptions which I will not read entirely, with the permission of the House. However, I should like to quote section No. 10.
Papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract until the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded.
That means that the papers could not be tabled as long as negotiations leading up to a contract have not been concluded. In the present case, which is mentioned in the motion, section 10 does not apply, since it is not a matter of pending negotiations prior to a contract. On the contrary, the negotiations ended a long time ago, the agreement was signed and the subsidy granted, since it was the topic of the article published in all the newspapers.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion was set up by an act of Parliament. Regulations governing the application of that legislation were drawn by senior officials. This department's purpose is to encourage regional economic development by granting special advantages to industries through loans or subsidies. Subsidies can be offered to manufacturing or processing industries which set up, enlarge or modernize their plants in designated areas, or special areas.
Most manufacturing and processing industries are eligible for subsidies except oil refineries, industries transforming minerals into concentrates, and pulp and paper industries.
However, it is stipulated that in some "special areas" subsidies can be granted to industries that are not eligible under the terms of the regional development incentives program. Was that rule applied in the case of Le Soleil mentioned in the motion?
Can printing be considered as a manufacturing or processing operation? If the answer is yes, why can the same not be said of milling industries, which use all types of grains and other products and transform them into cubed feed? Recognizing that grants can be made to a newspaper-whether it be Le Soleil of Quebec or any other- while refusing to grant them to milling enterprises, constitute to my mind a most serious weakness which should be remedied right away.
This reminds me of the case of the Meunerie cooperative de Saint-Fran?ois, which was destroyed by fire. Members of the co-operative have decided to rebuild the millstone factory and to modernize their industry. Eleven jobs have thus been created, but that firm could not benefit from any grant from the Department.
If by subsidizing newspapers we in fact help them to get better organized in order to provide the public with a better quality information and to free them from the obligation to accept any kind of dangerous advertising which gives our children a bad orientation and causes a lot of concern to parents and the authorities in general, at least the government will have a valid argument to justify his policy.
What we are asking for through this motion is simply some information. And as representatives elected by the people and members of Parliament, which is after all the highest authority in this country, it seems that we have a
[Stage Direction]

right to know in detail the arrangements which have been reached concerning the subsidies granted by the executive.
Who will monitor the way in which the taxpayer's money is spent if the government refuses to answer the inquiries of members of this House?
It will be perhaps answered that the Auditor General is responsible for that. I agree; however, my hon. colleagues know quite well that in the last few years the reports of the auditor have been quite severe, but did the government take them into account?
In the notes of the last report of the Auditor General one can read at paragraph 107: "Shared costs under a development contract not verified. Basic documents not released."
Mr. Speaker, even the Auditor General complains about a lack of information due to the unavailability of basic documents.
At page 91 of his last report the Auditor General states in his remarks on the use of funds allocated to local initiative projects, and I quote:
1.	Extensions to the Program from May 31 to June 16, to September 30 and then to November 30, 1972, substantially altered it from a winter job-creating program to one of continuing employment aid.
2.	Contributions were made to projects in circumstances where improvements to privately-owned property were being financed in whole or in part from funds provided under the Program.
And at paragraph 5 one can read:
5. Some project workers were self-employed, such as farmers and fishermen, while others were full-time students. Several instances were noted where individuals received wages from projects while employed elsewhere on a full-time basis.
Mr. Speaker, all this to say that in addition to the Auditor General the official opposition has an important role to play not only at the legislative level but also at the administrative level.
The Prime Minister himself one day stressed the value of a good parliamentary opposition. He noted the increasing complexity of the business of the state and the difficulties facing conscientious members as well as the necessity of modernizing the way in which the House of Commons deals with the business of the state.
I know the parliamentary secretary who will be rising on the subject will talk about the importance of preserving and respecting the confidential nature of corporate relationships with the various departments.
However, while trusting the executive, the fact remains that the whole thing is administered by human beings who are subject to errors; that is why it is important for our democracy that the opposition be enabled to discharge its duty. This is also the reason why the procedure is to the effect that, in some cases, members are entitled to move motions to demand the production of papers.
In a way, the government has created another department by establishing an agency called Information Canada. It is a necessary agency which will surely be helpful to the Canadian people, if it discharges its duty in an suitable manner.
Must we now create another agency for the information of members of Parliament? I hope not! That is why, on
Regional Economic Expansion behalf of the hon. member for Bellechasse, I ask for concurrence in this motion.
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the quite remarkable tenacity of the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada. This is the third motion of this kind moved in the House under similar circumstances.
They are of course still dissatisfied with the government's position. This is why I wish to reiterate certain points which perhaps have not been sufficiently clarified by previous interventions.
First, the government's reply is quite clear. If the documents which are demanded or at least requested are not produced it is not to deprive the opposition of an opportunity to review the merits of the grant but because of a question of privilege.
As indicated in the past, and as so competently emphasized by the member for Abitibi (M. Laprise), when an invitation is made to certain applicants, that is to say corporations or individuals interested in benefiting from the program which has been developed, it is understood that any information supplied to the department will be considered confidential.
Indeed it is indicated in the documentation gathered by the parties that the government undertakes to keep as confidential all information supplied and everyone will agree this is justified.
We must admit-and I am convinced that this is recognized by members of the Social Credit-that we still live in a country where capitalism is most important and, in fact, is the basis of our economic system. They will also admit that in our commercial exchanges, we have always accepted the necessity of maintaining discretion and keeping for ourselves the information exchanged between the parties. If the department is to discharge its duties as responsible department, it will have to obtain all available information to make its choice and take the right decision. Therefore it must be fully informed. To obtain this information the department must guarantee to the applicant that it will be kept confidential.
The same thing will happen when the member for Abitibi will see his banker and ask him to lend him some money or grant him some financial advantage. He would not like the banker to begin spreading here and there the information provided to him.
Someone argued that the member must have the information and that it must be given to him. But we use some procedures; the estimates have been mentioned, how they must be reviewed and dealt with.
Mr. Speaker, we have just completed the consideration of the government estimates.
The Social Credit Party of Canada is entitled to go to the committee on regional development to consider the estimates of that department. It rests with its members to obtain information, if there is an issue to be raised, that is any indication that in the approval of an application something was not entirely right.


Regional Economic Expansion
There are advantages. Previously, the Creditist member may have had difficulties, since the estimates were considered in the House, but thanks to the amendments to the Standing Orders of the House, the review of those estimates has been transferred to the various committees and necessarily, if anything has brought up questions to the member's mind, he might have inquired during the consideration of the estimates.
In addition, he points out that his notice of motion has been on the order paper since February 21. We have had since that date the opportunity to examine the estimates of the department. The hon. member could have then delved into the matter that interested him in view of the fact that he introduced his motion in the House through private members business.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) mentioned he was proud that the department was created and that he hoped it would expand. If he really did he sould make sure that all people who submit an application to the department are protected and that the information they will provide will be held in strict confidence. On the other hand, if the objective of the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert), as presented by the hon. member for Abitibi, is to obtain or require some information I can assure him that he will obtain almost unlimited co-operation from the department.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a case which, to my knowledge, has been a great help to my constituents: I obtained on request, with the co-operation of the department, that a seminar should be held in my riding to inform the merchants of the benefits available to them through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and according to the reports I read, the officials did a good job and they provided all the essential information required to complete the applications. But, at that time it was clearly stated, with the public's approval, that all this information was held in the strictest confidence to the satisfaction of the people concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention that the department has deemed it advisable, for sometime, to table in the House a monthly report which outlines the government's policy concerning the point raised by the hon. member. The table of contents of the report for April 1973 which I have at hand gives an idea of the report. Part I gives summary statistics. Part 2 deals with incentives grant activity during the month, detailing all grants. Part 3 deals with loan guarantee activity during the month and Part 4, with definitions.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to quote the third paragraph on page 2 of the Report on Regional Development Incentives of April 1973. I understand that this paragraph is reproduced in all the reports. It reads, and I quote:
The purpose of this monthly report is to provide Parliament and the general public with up-to-date information on the operation of the regional development incentives program. The report contains summary statistics on administrative actions taken from the inception of the program until the end of the month in question, together with listings of essential facts pertaining to each offer of incentive assistance accepted during that month.
Mr. Speaker, this report contains, in fact, all the information that can be given. I also note, on page 5 of the same report, another part which could be of help to hon. mem-

bers. I quote from the introduction of the report the following:
In conclusion, it should be noted that applications for incentive assistance and supporting documentation contain a large amount of information that must be regarded as commercially confidential. It is for this reason that, as a matter of policy, the department is unable to make public certain types of data. It is for the same reason that the department does not reveal the fact that a particular application has been received unless and until it results in an accepted offer of incentive assistance. This policy is, of course, consistent with the aims and objectives of the program, which is designed to encourage investment in the designated regions and special areas of Canada.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, in several cases the applicant must give the department information which could indicate a certain weakness as compared with his own competitors. Of course, if they want to encourage this applicant to call on the department in order to remedy and eliminate regional disparities, they must assure him that in fact they will not reveal information which will be given to the department.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to deal with a point which has been raised earlier by the hon. member for Abitibi, namely the question of the Auditor General, in order to add to the argument I put forward when I said that the hon. member had access to the committee which reviews the DREE estimates. He also has access to the committee which reviews the estimates of the Auditor General, and when the report indicates that some expenditures were not administratively justified, he can still pursue his investigation by asking the Auditor General, when he appears before the committee, for additional information.
The member for Abitibi also drew the attention of the House-


An hon. Member:: The honourable!


Mr. Blais:: Yes, I should have said the honourable member. I apologize.
The notice of motion of March 15, which was printed as Appendix "B" to Hansard clearly states the general principle which justifies or, at least, determines the criterion that governs Parliament, members of the House and the ministers as to the production of documents.
Then exceptions are given. Nevertheless he did not quote a paragraph I consider as very important, and he should do so, and I draw his attention to this document. Paragraph 16 reads as follows:
16. Papers requested, submitted or received in confidence by the government from sources outside the government.
This is the exact paragraph which applies to the case before us.
Undoubtedly the documents in question have been confidentially requested, submitted or received and it is on the basis of this principle that the government feels it is justified in refusing to produce them. Some other paragraphs could also be applied and I would draw the attention of the House on paragraph 14 which reads as follows:
14. Papers that are private or confidential and not of a public or official character.


I wonder what could be more confidential than documents of economic or financial nature and related to the communications between the applicant and the government which tries to help him. Thus, paragraph 12 reads as follows:
12. Cabinet documents and those documents which include a Privy Council confidence.
I also think that this definition would directly cover this case.
Paragraph 5 reads as follows and I quote:
5. Papers containing information, the release of which would allow or result in direct personal financial gain or loss by a person or a group of persons.
I am quoting this paragraph so as to again justify what I said earlier for the benefit of the hon. member.
In fact, some pieces of information might be used by competitors or suppliers who could take over the applicant's market thanks to their awareness of a possible economic weakness of the applicant.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to indicate that I am very interested by that as well as the development of the program, and I am very interested in not allowing the passage of legislation which could make it less effective because my riding is eligible for grants
And as a matter of fact my riding benefitted from that program and it was never my intention to examine the accounts and the history of those companies to determine why they applied, in what circumstances and what were the conditions attached to those grants made by the government. I was satisfied that the grants were made, that the choice was judicious and that the operations of some companies increased and that they were set up through grants made available to them.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we are dealing with a new legislation and a new program. The minister recently announced that he would see to it that over 70 per cent of his administrative staff is sent to affected areas because he wants to obtain all the information that could be useful.
It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that with that information decisions will be even more effective and fruitful. And I urge the hon. member for Abitibi to gather as much information as possible if he has any reason to believe that a decision was improperly made and to bring that information to the attention of the House. Furthermore, I am convinced that a study will be made on the criteria on which that decision rested.
Mr. Speaker, that is far from the request made by the hon. member calling for the production of all papers relating to a grant which was made in the past. That would be creating a very dangerous precedent. Why? Because, by providing non the hon. member for Abitibi with this information, it would mean that any information could be required at any time. This is what is dangerous because it means that any information that is provided with the assurance that it will be kept secret, will have to be made available to hon. members who request it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this would directly-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, i regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.
Regional Economic Expansion


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr.Speaker, following the hon. members for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) and for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert), I have supported this motion for papers. I do not intend to speak at length because we sincerely hope to end the debate before six o'clock in order to get the requested papers.
I would not like to do like the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) who skated all around without tackling it, in the hope of getting as near as possible to six o'clock in order to kill the motion.
The first duty of a member of this House, regardless of his party, is to try and get enough information to enable him to check the administration of the executive. The duty of the legislator, of the legislative system, of the House of Commons, is to check everything, if possible, and with the means available to us, including the device of motions for papers, to check the administration of the government.
Mr. Speaker, I should only like to deal with a few points made by the hon. member for Nipissing in order to convince him ot perform his real duty as a member and to grant his colleagues the privilege,-which is no longer a privilege-the possibility to obtain papers.
What the hon. member for Bellechasse is requesting and what we are requesting with him is, and I quote:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the contract and all documents relating to a grant by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the newspaper Le Soleil of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, to summarize the discussion, the primary reason for this request, which was very well explained by the hon. member for Abitibi is as follows: we find in our municipalities, in our ridings-and I have no doubt there are some in the Nipissing riding also-a certain type of industries, among others for example, the flour mills which also ask for subsidies in order to create new jobs in a developing area, and they are denied all subsidies on the pretext that they do not process any commodity.
And, Mr. Speaker, according to the information we and the hon. member for Bellechasse have, the daily Le Soleil, not because it is Le Soleil, it could just as well have been Le Droit, Le Devoir or La Presse or any other paper- asked for a subsidy which we are told has been granted.
We would like to know, Mr. Speaker, how these negotiations have been carried out so that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion recognize that a newspaper industry processes material, while an industry which also does a processing job is refused any subsidy even if the latter would be accepted under all other requirements.
Mr. Speaker, refusing these documents is depriving the hon. member and the Canadian people from their privileges if, given the motives of the hon. member for Nipissing, pretending to protect the competition-and I fully agree with him-to protect individual interests of a particular company, to encourage the development of a specific region, they refuse to release certain information. Mr. Speaker, how can we encourage development in a specific area, in Bellechasse, Lotbiniere, Abitibi or Nipissing, if the other companies do not know how to make the Department of Regional Economic Expansion understand that they too are doing some processing.


Regional Economic Expansion
On what criteria does the department differentiate a company that does some processing from another one that does not? On what criteria? On what the minister tells us? On what we are told in committee?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nipissing is honest enough, I know he is, to agree with me that at the committee level, things do not go as far as he pretended, and that even the Auditor General of Canada, who has been so aptly quoted by the hon. member for Abitibi, does not have the documents which could meet the members' needs.
What is the role of the Auditor General, named directly by Parliament, if it is not to represent all members and investigate the finances and the administration in all departments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Auditor General finds it impossible, to get the required documents in the case of a grant to a company or another, then how can one agree with the hon. member for Nipissing and say that we should be satisfied with what we are being told, with what is being thrown at us.
I would like to raise another argument which he used to try and convince him if I can: he gave the example-and I was quite surprised-of the honourable member for Abitibi who goes to a banker, to the Caisse populaire, and who would like his financial transactions not to be disclosed.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the point! The honourable member for Nipissing and his colleagues should distinguish between private and public funds. When a Caisse populaire-and this is for the information of the honourable member for Nipissing-grants a loan to one of its members, it is lending private funds. But when the department of Regional Economic Expansion makes a grant, whether it be to the Quebec newspaper Le Soleil, IBM corporation or any other company in his constituency or mine, the department is making as many grants in the creditist ridings as in the liberal ridings-it is public funds distributed in the form of grants.
Therefore, the people's representative have the right and not just the privilege, to know how this money is spent, why the beneficiaries have invested it and all about this operation.
It is precisely for this positive purpose to help other industrialists and other corporations to invest more and create employment that we want to know the reasons for this investment in the Quebec newspaper Le Soleil; we do welcome it and we would like this experience to be repeated not only with newspapers but in other specific fields more in accordance with Qudbec's reality.
Finally, I am led to believe that the reasons advanced to reject a motion for the production of papers which is however quite simple, are the following: did the government invest in such corporation and, if so, under what terms?
That does not disturb absolutely no one, and it is the money of the people from Lotbiniere, Bellechasse, Abitibi, Richmond and everywhere that is invested there, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether, all things considered, it is not indirectly a question of patronage.
If there is nothing to hide, it if is perfectly honest, I cannot understand why one would go through such

trouble, Mr. Chairman, to beat around the bush, in order to turn down a motion which is after all very simple.
If there is something to hide, then it is quite normal that they should not want to disclose such information, but if everything is above board, as I hope it is, if the investments have all been sound, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see why we should not know about them.
And I will conclude with an example: The federal government, through the Department of Economic Regional Expansion, did grant in the past a subsidy to the Manic Company, in Granby, and we know that that company went bankrupt shortly after.
Mr. Chairman, that is an unfortunate experience, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion cannot always make good investments. We understand that. However, Mr. Chairman, it is our duty as members of Parliament, to know why that has happened, to know about the circumstances, to see whether or not serious studies were undertaken before such investment was made or such grant was approved.
Mr. Chairman, to the extent that it pertains to an unfortunate experience of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, it seems to me that, as a positive approach my colleagues should agreed to this motion for production of papers, in order to know whether an investment such as the one made to the newspaper Le Soleil of Quebec could not be made also to other related, similar or different industries in our respective constituencies, as for instance to the flour mills.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues and members from other parties to discharge their duty as members in a functional and effective manner, jointly and severally by asking the government to tell us exactly where the people's money goes.
When a taxpayer invests one dollar in his country by way of direct or indirect taxes, he expects, Mr. Speaker, that the government will not waste this money and that it will be invested in a profitable way. He also expects when he votes, that his representative in this House will serve as an intermediary between him and the government to check on the management of this tax dollar.
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the role which we play and I cannot see how the hon. member from Nipissing (Mr. Blais) could blame us for fulfilling this role, while he protects the government and seems to want to hide things. As to us, we have nothing to hide, we only want to protect the people.
[ English]


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak on the merits of this motion I hesitate to follow either of the two hon. members who immediately preceded me. Each has discussed the aspects involved extensively from his point of view.
I should like, however, to make several points. On the surface, certainly, I can see the merits of a motion such as the one before us. It involves a newpaper which has an obvious influence on the public. It plays a role in judging public issues and has an influence, also, on politics. This paper finds itself receiving moneys through a program which is being run by the federal government. In these


circumstances, why, indeed, should we not produce this information if there is nothing to worry about, if there is no patronage involved.
That is a point to be considered, but I think there is an even more important principle involved here. It is the right of an individual or company not to be prejudiced by the revelation of information which might be injurious. In this instance a newspaper has received a grant and encounters criticism for doing so. Some members of the House would like to know the details respecting that grant.
It could be said in this chamber that by refusing to give these details we leave ourselves open to allegations of patronage. I say, however, that the very fact the government is not anxious to give these details is proof we have a viable reason for not doing so. Surely, if we are willing to stand up to a line of criticism which can be advanced with great strength by members of other parties and by that portion of the press which is in competition with Le Soleil, it cannot be argued that the government which I support is not being very brave in taking its present stance.
The opposition may accuse us of patronage and, perhaps, make political ground as a result. Yet we stand firm on our position. I suggest we are taking our present attitude for one main reason: If the information were made public in this one case, it would have to be done in every case. We cannot give all the details with respect to one DREE grant while refusing similar information with respect to any other organization receiving grants under this program. To proceed in such a way would result in the failure, I suggest, of the whole program-one of the most important programs initiated by the government.
The object of these grants is not to make companies wealthy. They are intended to assist them in maintaining business when their operations are in jeopardy, to help them to expand, where possible, when a reasonable request is received, but, at any rate, to continue in existence, to maintain the amount of employment they normally provide, and, hopefully, to provide additional jobs. To provide such information as the hon. member requests would prove disastrous to any grant program where the confidentiality of personal and other information is vital to the success of the organization concerned.
The officials of the department are certainly willing to discuss the case of Le Soleil with the hon. member who brought forward this motion. They maintain they are completely satisfied that there is real need in this case. If hon. members accept my general argument that a company is likely to be prejudiced in its operations by the disclosure of information of the type now demanded, does this argument not apply with even greater force to companies which find themselves in difficulty and which, because of those very circumstances, feel they must call upon an agency of government for assistance?
I understand that the dealings of the department with Le Soleil were conducted on the basis that the operation of a commercial printing undertaking was involved. Those of us who are in politics are well aware that the section of the information media concerned with printing is under serious pressure. In fact, its very existence is in question. In my own area of metropolitan Toronto we have seen a major newspaper fold. We have seen newspapers go under
Regional Economic Expansion
in New York City and other large United States urban centres. Those newspapers which are staying alive, those which I know of-and I have some experience in the media-are succeeding in doing so, except in very few extremely successful cases, by diversifying their operations. The most obvious way to diversify is to run a commercial printing operation by means of which a company can acquire stability or gain revenue independent of what may happen on the circulation side.
According to my understanding, the application made by Le Soleil was on those grounds: it was connected with their printing operation and designed to enable them to continue, something which would not be possible if they had not received this money. If a question should be raised as to the general policy followed by DREE in terms of assisting operations of this kind, may I say I have here a list of 97 different commercial printing operations across Canada which have received such assistance. This includes, for instance, Canadian Publishers of Winnipeg, Hignell Printing Limited of Winnipeg, Duha Printers of Winnipeg. The Stovell Advocate of Winnipeg also received a grant, and the name suggests to me that its operations might be compared with those of Le Soleil, the subject of the motion before us.
Let me make a further point about the difficulties faced by Le Soleil. Revealing the private business of any company seeking assistance would lead to the argument that all of us have probably faced here during private members' hour. We have all heard the argument on previous occasions on other motions, not just those moved by hon. members of the Creditiste party but motions from other parts of the House. I can recall debating one motion put forward by an hon. member for the NDP which called for the revelation of private information. All these motions which call for such information are based on the feeling of individual people that we must have answers to questions which arise in our minds.
As long as we have governments running the country there will be a question as to how much information can be revealed and how much must be retained for reasons of security or for the protection of an individual or a company. One of my colleagues suggested earlier that the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) was talking around the question and not coming to the point, or perhaps trying to talk the time out. Certainly nobody is fooling anybody else by suggesting that I am only talking on this subject because I am concerned about it. Indeed, we would be setting a very serious precedent, and destroying a very important program, if we were to let this motion go through. I make no bones about it; I am taking some time because I would find it extremely dangerous simply for us to let the motion go through.
In spite of all that has been said about a newspaper which has had some influence, we must turn the matter around and look the other way as well. The government must take certain precautions, in order to protect a principle; and that principle is the right of privacy, the right of fair business competition without your competitors knowing the details of your business, especially when you are in jeopardy and seeking assistance.


Regional Economic Expansion
There is my point in reverse. Why should a newspaper be picked upon, or why should one particular operation be placed in jeopardy, simply because the business may relate indirectly to the government? This is particularly true in this case even though this company legitimately needed assistance.
When a company seeks assistance in order to maintain itself as an operation, as is the situation in this case, the information must fall within the rules. These rules do not primarily relate to the newspaper operation but in fact to the commercial printing division.
The government will always be vulnerable to the kind of motion we are faced with today. As a backbencher I must say I always have some sympathy toward this kind of motion moved by members of parliament who are not in the government party but are honestly seeking information. I understand their situation when they believe something may be suspect. This is especially true when they are seeking information seemingly, as argued by one hon. member earlier, not on the basis of something crucially important, and not because they smell something very rotten in the woodpile, but simply because they want to know the facts and understand the situation.
I suggest it is not that simple. If we let this one insignificant motion go through during this private members' hour, during the middle of a hot summer, we will be opening up a can of worms, particularly in respect of those companies who might want to come to the government seeking assistance, trusting that the information they provided would be private. We would be starting a domino effect which would destroy the ability of the government to deal with the private affairs of any individual or company in order to assist them.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the session the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen) brought down a series of guidelines which were designed to provide the government with methods by which motions for the production of papers would be judged. One of the main criteria was the question of confidentiality of internal documentation and the confidentiality of information exchanged between governments and the private sector. This includes not only companies but also the sanctity of income tax forms and other information which one gives the government, for example at census time.
What we are dealing with almost every time we debate private members' motions for the production of papers is this question of confidentiality and the question of trust. We really have not come to any solution which is satisfactory to us all. We have not come to any solution to which we can point with some pride that takes into account, on the one hand, the needs of the government and the private sector to exchange information on a confidential basis, and on the other hand, the needs of legislators to have access to the kind of information which is brought forth to governments at this time. One of the frustrations we have as legislators is that we do not have access to all the information that is truly available on any given subject. Sometimes that information is confidential and does exist, but sometimes that information simply does not exist at all.

We have referred these guidelines of which I spoke earlier to the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. That committee is going to make an examination as to how these guidelines have operated in the six months they have been accepted by the House. We have been making an investigation into the way in which questions on the order paper and motions for the production of papers have been treated by various government departments in order to ascertain if in fact there has been a significant change in the amount of material being made available by the government which was not the case before, or whether government departments are carrying on in their merry old way of keeping information secret largely for the sake of keeping it confidential and away from others.
This is a very important point because it is the intention of the authors of the guidelines to open up, so far as practical, information which the government collects, sometimes by accident and sometimes deliberately, and make this information available not only to legislators but also to the general public.
The way to do this is not yet known. The amount of information which any government department has at any given time is simply mountainous. The question of determining how much of that information should be made available without request and how much should be made available on request, how much should be made available for limited circulation and what part of it ought to be kept secret in the interest of confidentiality and of the state, is a question on which, I suspect, there will be no conclusive judgment simply because it amounts to a judgment by individual men.
The standards in this regard change. The standards of today will not necessarily be the standards of tomorrow. Today we probably release more information by way of these motions, and just on general principle, than was the case 10 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I see it is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury that Bill C-196, respecting the 1976 Olympic games, be read the third time and do pass, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Peters, p. 5978).
Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks tonight on this bill regarding the 1976 summer Olympic games by saying


this bill runs counter to the solemn promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few months ago regarding these games. I refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House to the effect that the city of Montreal must bear the full burden of the financing of the games and that under no circumstances would the people of Canada be asked or required to foot the bill for any deficit incurred by either the city of Montreal, the Olympic committee or the province of Quebec.
Members of this House will recall that Mayor Drapeau of Montreal stated at the time he was successful in getting the games for Montreal that it was his victory and that it would be his responsibility. He not only stated he would not ask the federal government to pay off the deficit on the operation of the games, but repeatedly assured us that there would be no deficit. However, we find in this bill clear evidence that there has been some sort of consultation between the federal government and Mayor Drapeau, and possibly the government of Quebec, concerning the games.
We also find clear evidence in this bill that the federal government has in fact committed the people of Canada in direct contradiction to the Prime Minister's solemn promise. We find that the federal government has committed itself in several ways in respect of the financing of the games, and now in this House of Commons we are asked to formalize these commitments. This has been done without the formality and without the courtesy of a statement by the government that the Prime Minister's promise was not really a promise at all. The people of Canada have been committed to financing the games without being told in advance that all the solemn assurances to the contrary were in fact a put-off.
I cannot help but think consultations were taking place along these lines at the same time as we were told the federal government had adopted a hands-off policy in respect of the financing of the games. Before I go into the specifics of the schemes that have been worked out to try to raise money to finance the games, I should like to refer my colleagues to clause 11 (1) which states:
There shall be established in the accounts of Canada an account to be known as the Olympic Account.
Further along, subclause (3) states:
There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and charged to the Olympic Account
(a)	all administrative, merchandising, distribution, promotion and other costs incurred by Canada in connection with the distribution and sale of Olympic coins, as determined by the Postmaster General; and
(b)	all amounts paid to the Olympic Corporation pursuant to subsection (4).
We find that subclause (6) allows the federal government to authorize payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the extent of $500,000. This is a far cry from the position the Prime Minister adopted a few months ago and announced in this House. We in this House, and the Canadian people, were reassured by that announcement on the position and policy of the government. But I cannot help feeling that members of this House are going to be asked some very searching questions by their constituents when the full impact of this bill is felt across the country.
Olympic Bill
I can well remember the hoopla and the fanfare that attended Mayor Drapeau's pyrrhic victory in having the summer games awarded to the city of Montreal. He was hailed as the super salesman from that city, and many people even compared him to the great P. T. Barnum. At that time I was apprehensive, even though Mayor Drapeau assured one and all that he would take care of everything. For one thing I was not so naive that I could accept the thesis that Mayor Drapeau could commit the city of Montreal to host an international event of this magnitude without in some way committing the federal government of Canada.
On February 9 of this year I told my constituents in a news letter that Mayor Drapeau had in fact committed the Canadian people and the Canadian government when he committed Montreal to host the games. I have been proven right, Mr. Speaker, but the mere fact of being right on this point does not make me feel any less apprehensive. In my view, this has been a shabby and devious way for the federal government and the Mayor of Montreal to work out the details of financing the games.
I stated at the time the games were awarded to Montreal that I was under the impression that Mr. Drapeau had assured the Olympic committee that he had worked out the financial details as far as the games were concerned; that the committee had been shown some facts and figures, together with a comprehensive plan setting out procedures to cover housing, games facilities, security and all other pertinent aspects of holding the games.
We now know that that was not the case. In retrospect we can be forgiven for believing that Mayor Drapeau had in fact committed the federal government on such matters as financing, security, housing and other matters. We saw recently, for example, that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation got into the picture very quickly, and that there will be tens of millions of dollars available in CMHC money to finance the construction of housing for the athletes at the games. This is a major item of expense, and it clearly shows that the federal government has been deeply involved in the Olympic games for quite a long time, long before this bill was drafted, and certainly a long time before the bill was introduced in the House.
Here I want to say just a word about security at the games. In this aspect I will have to agree with my colleague to my left, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), who stated it was common knowledge that the matter of security is beyond the capability of the police forces of Montreal and the province.
This means that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Armed Forces will have to be involved. The recent experiences of other countries holding the Olympic games show clearly that security is one of the most important aspects of the games. In fact, Mr. Speaker, surveys have shown that a great many Canadians are against holding the games in Canada because of the unhappy experiences of countries such as Mexico and Germany.
There are radical groups in the world today who plan ahead to the Olympic games. They use them as platforms to vent their hatred on countries that they feel have


Olympic Bill
slighted them, or have prevented them from expressing honest and legitimate views. Whether these people are right or wrong as far as their beliefs are concerned is immaterial; the fact is that they are prepared to commit murder to disrupt the games and publicize their grievances.
I will not dwell on these matters any further, Mr. Speaker, because as we all know by now these aspects of the games have been worked out by the city of Montreal and the federal government. I will only say, before I deal with the amendments that have been added to the bill by the standing committee, that I wish the government had taken us into its confidence back in the early days of the negotiations.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am relieved to be able to say to my constituents that an amendment to the original bill limits the extent to which the Olympic Corporation can dip into the public till-"trough" is a better word. This has been set at $260 million, but I am not certain in my own mind that this is going to be enough to finance such an ambitious undertaking. I am reminded of the experience we had with Expo 67, and I am rather uneasy, to say the least.
Going back to clause 11, I note that the net cost of the redemption of any Olympic coins left unsold will be charged to the Olympic account. This is not exactly a guarantee. It will only serve to identify another item in any deficit that occurs in the financing of the games, and this will be picked up by the federal government. It will have to be paid off by the federal government because there simply is not anyone else to whom Mayor Drapeau can turn.
The taxpayers should take some comfort from the amendments that make up the whole of clause 13. These amendments call for periodical reports from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) concerning the progress of the selling, redemption and production of Olympic coins. This is a refreshing departure from the way in which the Expo 67 accounting was handled, and it will also allow for regular accounting of the amounts of money paid into the account of the Olympic Corporation.
I am also relieved that reports filed by the government concerning the Olympic coins account can be referred to a standing committee for scrutiny if a motion to do so is signed by at least 60 members and is filed with the Speaker of the House. I have no doubt that from time to time there will be 60 members who are interested enough to take the trouble to petition for a committee examination of these reports.
We would not be debating such an important matter as hosting the Olympic games in this atmosphere of distrust and animosity if the government had come clean with us several months ago. It should be apparent to everyone directly concerned with the games that it would have been far better for general public acceptance of the games if the federal government and the city of Montreal had not been carrying on these negotiations as though it were a private and personal deal.
This is a public matter, Mr. Speaker, and I must say to the House and to all of the principals in the proceedings that, as long as Mayor Drapeau persisted in grandstand-

ing, the federal government should have kept its hands out of the stew. We were assured by the Prime Minister during that period that that is exactly what it was doing. However, we now know that during this grandstand play the mayor was being backed, supported and abetted by the federal government.
That is the reason we are going to have to buckle down now and try to convince the Canadian people that the Olympic games will be conducted in the very best traditions of Canadian hospitality, Canadian ingenuity and Canadian sportsmanship. It is certainly not to our credit that the games were awarded to Montreal in a manner that is not in keeping with the spirit of the Olympic tradition, but we must go on from here and try to ensure that the games are an overwhelming success.
It will help a great deal if we can be assured that future negotiations will be moved out of the dark corners and smoke filled rooms into the open. I think there has been enough grandstanding. There has been far too much deception in the handling of the games up to this point. This bill commits us totally, Mr. Speaker, and I want us to move forward now and show the rest of the world that Canada can do this type of thing better than anyone else. I would even like to see us set the tone for Olympic games of the future.


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the concluding remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie) and I must say that at the end he was engaging in a considerable amount of wishful thinking. It is all very well for us to decide here that we should do our best to speed this legislation in order to have the Olympics in 1976, but the simple fact is that once the bill is passed, once it goes through this House, that is the last chance any one of us has to talk about it. Because we are not in any way connected with the games. We can have reviews and so forth, but when it comes to the planning of the games we will have nothing to say. That is all right. We can give them all the good wishes-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, order. I should like to remind hon. members that Standing Order 12 states that when a member is speaking no member shall pass between him and the chair nor interrupt him except to present a point of order. Perhaps hon. members would be good enough to allow us to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


John Paul Harney: I should like to thank you and my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and particularly the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).
When once prepares a speech one spends a lot of time on one's own points. This evening I have been listening to what other members have said, and there are some things that I approve of and some which chagrin me. For example, I was rather hurt that the hon. member for Saint-Hya-

cinthe (Mr. Wagner) construed the fact that the leader of the New Democratic Party had not spoken on this bill as evidence that the leader of our party was not in favour of the stand taken by members of the party in this House. Certainly I will not construe from the fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has not spoken on this bill as evidence that he is in disagreement with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. I would not want to do a thing like that.
Another thing that was not nice at all was the hon. member's combination and process of non sequiturs and guilt by association when he made a remark to the effect that we who are opposed to this bill are opposed to Montreal, the mayor of Montreal and the province of Quebec.
I invite the hon. member to attack the mayor of Toronto whenever he feels like it. I would not for a second think he was attacking all the province of Ontario in the reversal of Mr. Crombie. There are some times when I disagree with Mr. Crombie, but I am not opposed to Ontario completely!
There was something else in the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe which rather overwhelmed me. He made reference to the young people, the children in the Point St. Charles area, and said that these poor poverty stricken children would be given something to look at by the 1976 Olympics. He said that might just change their world so much that they would not fall into the patterns of drug taking, petty crime and so on which he signified were so prevalent in the Point St. Charles area.
I suggest there is an important direct method, which involves less Pollyanna, of doing something with these people. Take some of the money we are going to spend on the Olympics, build sports facilities for them and provide proper recreation programs for them. Take them off the streets directly. Do not just give them a distant vision of an Olympics that they will not be able to attend because it is far too expensive; give them real help in the city.
After all, Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that the city of Montreal now spends a measly 7.4 per cent of its budget on sports and recreation, that it stands 70th among cities of 5,000 population or more in the province of Quebec in terms of money spent on sports and recreation. If the object is to do something for Canadian youth, let us do it directly and not indirectly.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the parables of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) somewhat remind me of the aphorisms found in a booklet entitled "L'homme des tavernes". I do not know whether the hon. members have read this booklet, but this beer drinker, a chap from Montreal, a sage, has a rather astute way of commenting on the social and political situation in Montreal, Quebec and Canada. He sometimes makes ingenuous but straightforward remarks on the situation, and I remember that he once said: "One wonders whether poor children are more healthy than rich children, because if you walk through the slums of Montreal, you see very few children wearing glasses while in better districts, many wear some."


Roch La Salle: It is because they cannot afford them.


John Paul Harney: The hon. member for Joliette is right.
Olympic Bill

Just to make it easier for my English speaking colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the hon. member also remarked that in the poor areas of the city obviously the children were healthy because very few had braces on their teeth, whereas in the wealthier areas many children had braces on their teeth.


An hon. Member:: What has this to do with the Olympics?


John Paul Harney: It has a lot to do with the Olympics, because the money that is going to be spent on this lavish enterprise could be better spent. I will not detail now how it could be done because the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) did that this afternoon.
The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) said something yesterday which chagrined me. He said that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was either being naive or deceitful. That is not much of a choice if you stop to think of it.


An hon. Member:: We do not have much of a Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: How are you voting?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I do not know if it is because the hon. member who has the floor is attracting more attention than normal, but there is so much noise from an area on the left side of the House that it is difficult to hear and to follow the speech. I would remind hon. members that they should observe the decorum of the House and permit the hon. member who has the floor to speak so that we can follow what is going on.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the words that were attributed to the hon. member for Simcoe North should be attributed to me. I hope that Hansard will report that correctly.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. It was the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). At any rate, the words that the Prime Minister was either "naive or deceitful" were well chosen. I was suggesting that was not much of a choice since such a statement is predicated on the belief that the world is made up of fools and knaves. That is not much of a choice to give any one of us.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


John Paul Harney: Well, if you are a knave you are a fool; if you are deceitful you are a knave. I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, who would it be that would notice if a man was a fool? What choice has he got?
At the committee stage, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party proposed an amendment. I want the people on the other side to listen to this, particularly the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), because he was not there the other night. The amendment said, in effect, that if COJO should make a profit beyond a certain point, none of that extra money would go to COJO, the people of Montreal or the province of Quebec. I said, perhaps in naivete, certainly not in deceit, that if it is clear that the people of Quebec will be responsible for the deficit-we


Olympic Bill
shall not be responsible, that is clear-they should also be allowed to keep the profit, if any. Our friends to my right never put forward that amendment.
Surely, in the finest spirit of free enterprise, if the people of Quebec through COJO make a profit-which is chimerical, as I do not think it will happen-they should keep it. They take the risk, and they should keep the profit. The point is, as the hon. member for Temis-camingue should know, that we are saying to the people of Quebec who are organizing and supporting the Olympics that they are to incur a deficit, but that they cannot make a profit. That is not a nice way to run any business. I am sure my colleagues to my right would not run that kind of business.


David Réal Caouette: Nonsense.
[ Translation]


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, coming back to what I was saying, I simply want to say that I am opposed to that Pharaoh's banquet of Mayor Drapeau on two very logical grounds. First, the proposal in this bill is based essentially on the sale of coinage, on the minting of coinage. It must be kept in mind that what is proposed here is impossible because if the minting and the sale of Olympic coins were successful, that would mean that $417 million worth of coinage would have been sold. If $417 million worth of coinage were sold, those coins would not be rare, would have no value for collectors who like to collect rare items.
The bill contains an inconsistency, an impossibility. If such a quantity of coins were sold, people would not buy them, would not keep them as collection items. Furthermore, I cannot believe that if $417 million worth of that coinage were spread across the country and the world, people will not use it for legal tender.
Mr. Speaker, an amendment moved by a member of my party in committee to the effect that such coins could not be used to pay salaries of civil servants and military personnel. And the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) admitted earlier at a committee meeting that the distribution of that coinage by Canadian employers would be disastrous. An amendment moved by a Tory member was rejected but there was some kind of a deal that night between the two major parties. The Liberals accepted all Conservative amendments and supported them, even if some Liberal members could hardly understand them. They rejected all the amendments from my party although they had supported them earlier. Strange thing but that is what happened.
In such situations. Mr. Speaker, new members even NDP members do not stay ingenuous for a very long time; they become dissillusioned and this afflicts me a little. I strongly object to this bill because it places Parliament in the situation of Pontius Pilate, the one who washes his hands. We say: in a way it will make things easier but we will not be responsible; a lower court will be. Like Pontius Pilate, we say; it is not my business, try to settle it among yourselves. But I want to make things easier by providing troops, the materials needed and the right to do it, but do not come and tell me that I shall be blamed.
We cannot act this way, Mr. Speaker; we are the ones who are responsible because we do more than making things easier. We will allow the games to take place this way. As I said earlier, these games will be held under the form of a feast, another kind of monument the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec do not need. As the hon. member for Fraser-Valley West (Mr. Rose) said this afternoon, we could do so many other things with this money.


David Réal Caouette: They have no money. [English]


John Paul Harney: I could comment on the remarks the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) has made. We said, "Look, we will support a bill"-


David Réal Caouette: Well, you are supporting it.


John Paul Harney: Yes, but we would support a bill which would finance the Olympics directly from the public treasury, and we could be accountable to the people of Canada and take part in the planning as well as bear part of the responsibility.


David Réal Caouette: And you would be the managers, of course.


John Paul Harney: That might not be a bad idea. I want to mention a couple of things in conclusion. First, I want to read from some excellent literature. The first item I shall read is taken from the Prime Minister's letter to Mayor Drapeau, dated January 23, 1973. It says in part:
Taking the additional operating costs and the short-fall in projected revenues, our assessment would indicate that the budget would not be balanced, and instead you would be faced with a deficit of between $100 and $200 million- This assumes, moreover, that costs would not escalate between now and 1976.
Considering the way costs have escalated, the deficit would be between $150 and $250 million. I continue:
While we have every reason to believe that you and COJO will be making strong efforts to keep the costs to a minimum, we must bear in mind that they would well increase as a result of large unforeseen contingencies.
Later in the letter comes this telling passage:
You will appreciate that these would almost certainly require legislation by Parliament and that could not be expected to pass without a clear indication as to how the very large costs are going to be covered without direct federal involvement.
There it is. Have all members of this House now received the clear indication mentioned? Certainly we did not receive it in committee, Mr. Speaker. I have read from the Prime Minister's letter. It is excellent prose, I suggest, very well balanced, very telling, but nevertheless forgotten.
The other author from whom I want to quote is Percy Bysshe Shelley. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will not mind being associated with Shelley. I certainly would not. You know, there is something about this project that is very much like the project Ozymandias built. I see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) smiling as he recalls his college and high school literature. This poem is as follows:



I met a traveller from an antique land-
I keep meeting travellers from antique lands in this House. It is just a 14 line sonnet, and it is so rare that I ought to read it. Should I?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Paul Harney: To continue:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert.. . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Paul Harney: To those people who think they will be bringing benefit to the city of Montreal in terms of development, employment and a permanent increase in the wealth and well-being of its citizens, I wish to point out that through this bill they are supporting the kind of monumentalism that Ozymandias stood for, nothing for the people, everything for circuses, and very little bread in this particular case.
We now have a monument in Montreal which, if it is not decaying, is at least rusting. I am speaking of Expo and what remains of it. The part of it which is not going to fall to rust and rot-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Paul Harney: Take a look at what remains of Expo. It will be cut up to make another canal for the Olympics.
I am opposed to this bill because it puts before the people of Canada a totally distorted sense of priorities. I would be in favour of a more modest Olympics with controlled expenditure. I would be in favour of direct federal participation in the financing of this Olympics.
However, I cannot accept this kind of expenditure when there are crying needs in this country. There is no use kidding ourselves that the money is going to come out of the air; it is going to come from the people of Canada indirectly. The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) should realize this is the first time ever his monetary theories have been accepted in this Parliament. We are going to stamp money, plenty of it, without increasing the real wealth of the country. All we will do is create an inflationary factor. We will be debasing our Canadian currency. Every $5 that finds its way into the market place to buy bread or beer is going to cost the Canadian treasury $3. There is no getting out of that.
Olympic Bill
In conclusion, I would support a more modest Olympics and direct federal participation, both in terms of planning and financing. But I cannot support this bill.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes an ingenious method of achieving the objective of self-financing the 1976 summer Olympics without cost to the taxpayers. If it succeeds, it may inspire a new slogan, "Play now-pay never," because it will mean that a mammoth spectacle can be produced without an equally mammoth subsidy from the government.
It sounds almost too good to be true, and members of the public as well as of this House may be pardoned if they doubt it can be done. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has had his moments of uncertainty. On August 15, 1972, in a letter to Mayor Jean Drapeau, the Prime Minister said that in spite of repeated requests by federal officials the government had not received any detailed information about how the games were to be financed. On February 24, 1972, the mayor had estimated the cost would be about $124 million, but in August the Prime Minister said a federal government cost analysis estimated the cost might be about one half billion dollars, four times the mayor's estimate.
On January 23, 1973, uncertainty about financing the games was still perplexing the Prime Minister. In a letter to the mayor, he pointed out that the city of Montreal and COJO had approved capital and operating budgets of $310 million. That meant an increase in five months from an estimate of $124 million to $310 million, an escalation of two and one half times. The Prime Minister informed the mayor that federal officials feared operating expenditures would be greater than those projected in the COJO budget and that revenue sources for financing capital works would yield $100 million less than was previously expected. The result would be a deficit of between $100 and $200 million, assuming that costs would not escalate between 1973 and 1976.
On the basis of this gloomy prospect, the Prime Minister indicated the government could not accede to any request for federal authorization for revenue producing schemes, such as issuing coins and stamps and holding lotteries. That might have stopped a lesser man than the mayor of Montreal. Many might well have expected this meant the end of the Olympics.
Just eight days later, however, the premier of Quebec wrote the Prime Minister to say that the federal government would not have to assume the interim financing of costs relative to the games during the period leading up to and including the holding of the games. Provided the federal government agreed to remit to COJO the net proceeds of the sale of these special coins and stamps, premier Robert Bourassa agreed the federal government would not be asked for any special contribution toward the cost of the games.
My reason for citing this correspondence is to emphasize how commitments have been made that must inhibit either Montreal or Quebec from coming to the federal government for any further assistance. Mr. Roger Rousseau, the Olympics commissioner, has outlined his hope that the games will be self-financing if parliament passes Bill C-196. I hope he is right, but he may not be, so it must


Olympic Bill
be made absolutely clear to the premier, the mayor and the Olympics commissioner that if their costs exceed their revenue, they cannot look to this government and this Parliament for more help.
We are mindful of the way the costs of Expo '67 escalated. Parliament had to pay a subsidy far in excess of what had been anticipated. That kind of escalation must not happen again, and there should be no doubt left in the minds of officials in Montreal or Quebec about the determination of Ottawa to hold the line.
This is not because taxpayers in the rest of Canada are unwilling to share in the cost of this great spectacle. They are already committed to sizeable federal expenditures. Costs of building the Olympic village will involve CMHC funds estimated to range from $26 to $54 million, and that project will be of permanent use to the city of Montreal.
A Treasury Board financial analysis on January 31, 1973 estimated that the cost of Armed Forces involvement in the program of the games would be $8 million; that the cost of the R.C.M.P. and other federal employees attached to the games would be $20 million, and that the cost of CBC services would be around $25 million. The total is a possible $107 million of federal money, according to 1973 costs. That should indicate the way in which people across this country are supporting the project, even though it is only a few years since they paid the deficit for Expo amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Will the people be asked for still more? The Premier of Quebec has told the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) that they will not. This assurance, however, has been given in the face of a Treasury Board forecast that revenues from all sources, including the games, will be $172 million less than costs: a possible deficit of $172 million. Where will this money come from? No one has answered that question except to claim the sale of the coins, the stamps and the lottery tickets, added to regular Olympic revenues, will be so great that there will be no deficit.
What a promise! What a vision! If the scheme works, I suggest all party leaders offer to serve in a coalition government under Jean Drapeau. He will be the first man in Canadian history ever to have achieved so much for so little, and he is obviously the man this country needs. If we can finance games this way, why not housing, why not roads, why not parks? Why limit such brilliance to so short a display?
Let us just suppose the scheme does not work. Has the Premier of Quebec made any commitment that his government will assume the deficit? Has the mayor of Montreal indicated how much his city could underwrite? Just as important, has the Prime Minister of Canada made any arrangements for federal authorities to supervise and audit the way COJO's funds are managed? If the government is investing $107 million in the games, surely it is entitled to some voice in their management. In spite of all these assurances, by 1976 or 1977 a new mayor of Montreal and a new premier of Quebec may approach a new prime minister of Canada to lift them out of a hole they will claim others dug for them.
[Mr. Stackhouse.)
Surely the federal government should be playing a much more active role in the management of this massive event. I suggest the government appoint an auditor general to keep a close eye on how the money is spent by COJO, and who could do it better than Mr. Maxwell Henderson himself?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: The amendments to Bill C-196, accepted in committee, have made it a better bill because they have provided for more government supervision of the coin issue. They have provided safeguards which could prevent the coins being misused in such a way that COJO could pay off its debts with Olympic coins. They have set a limit on the aggregate amount so as to prevent the coin issue from being so great it could debase the currency.
I think this is the right approach. One option which I believe the NDP favours would be to defeat the bill, a move which could seriously jeopardize the possibility of the games being held. Another option, and a better one, is to accept this measure, but to demand much more efficient management or administration so that the promised result of the schemes put before us would be more likely to be achieved.
We need to be mindful of the value of the games to the entire nation. They give us an opportunity to return the hospitality our athletes have received in Olympics held in other countries when other countries have assumed the cost and the burden of those events. They afford us an opportunity to unite this country in one great experience, as a result of which athletic development will be stimulated in every community. Several speakers criticizing the Olympics have pointed out that various local communities need arenas, stadia, swimming pools and the like. I believe these communities have much more hope of achieving those ambitions because of the inspiration and stimulus they will receive from the games.
It is therefore incumbent upon us to do what is required of us at this time; that is to say, not to jeopardize the possibility of these games being held but to take action which would lead to their realization; not to sink the Olympics, but to take the steps needed to assure the efficient administration of the project's finances.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak during this debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-196.
I have followed attentively the various steps this bill went through, first in this House and then in the parliamentary committee. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I personally feel greatly satisfied when I think that Parliament is about to authorize the Post Office and also the Royal Canadian Mint to proceed with the issuing of Olympic stamps and coins this year as well as during the next three years, so as to provide for the financing of the 1976 Summer Olympic Games.
Through such issues and the lotteries that will be established, the Canadian government is going into a unique undertaking which-I emphasize it-is unprecedented in the history of Olympic Games financing.


I should like tonight to raise six points that were brought forward by members and which deserve explanations.
First I should like to say very clearly that the government wants this bill to be approved.
Second, I should like to remind all hon. members that the government members have taken every possible means to accelerate the passage of this bill.
Thirdly, I would like it to be clearly understood that the government's attitude about this bill has never changed and its enthusiasm has never wavered.
Fourthly, to those who are wondering what support the government will give the Games, I would like to remind them, by listing a host of cases where the government has shown how efficient it can be, that in fact it will play an extremely important role in the success of the Olympic Games.
Fifthly, I would like to say that in spite of the wish expressed by some hon. members, the Canadian government cannot substitute itself to the city of Montreal in the organisation of the Olympic Games proper.
Finally, I would like to invite all hon. members to realize that the 1976 Olympic Games are a unique opportunity to promote Canadian unity and rekindle the enthusiasm that prevailed in 1967.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is quite clear that the government wants this bill to be passed within the shortest possible time. My colleagues from the cabinet, the Liberal members of Parliament, all save one maybe, as well as many members of our party, from all the provinces, have repeatedly expressed their support of the Games.
Now I would like to point out to the House that differences of opinions are allowed within our party. The statements made by my colleague from Matane (Mr. De Bane) were those of a private individual and not those of a government representative. He spoke as any member of our party can speak in this House or outside. His opinion is a personal one quite exceptional within our group. The ministers, the members, the rank and file throughout the country have repeatedly given their unconditional support to the Olympic Games and I think that the position of the Government and of the Party I am representing is quite clear in this connection.
Furthermore, I would like to say that we did our best in an attempt to speed up the passage of this legislation. During the debate on second reading, government members restricted their remarks. In committee, there were very few contributions from the government side and this, in order to allow opposition members to express their views and ask all the questions they wanted.
I even recall a sitting when several government members gave up their allotted time to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who had the floor practically all the time.
Finally, government members co-operated fully, first, in the drafting and, secondly, in the passage of some of the amendments moved.
Olympic Bill
It is beyond doubt that, as far as we from the government side are concerned, we have been ready to support and pass this bill for a long time.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize this: the government's position and enthusiasm with regard to the Olympic Games have remained the same since May 1969, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) officially endorsed the application made by the City of Montreal to the International Olympic Committee. Therefore, this government's position has been known from the start. The federal government, while supporting the application of Montreal, said it could not share in the costs of the necessary facilities and related infrastructure. I think that the Prime Minister's letter to the Mayor of Montreal is quite clear in this respect, and I quote:
Dear Sir:
I am pleased to send you a copy of a letter that I sent to the President of the International Olympic Committee in support of the City of Montreal which is seeking the honour of hosting the 1976 Summer Olympic Games.
However, the federal government having already provided, within the framework of EXPO, substantial contributions for various facilities, some of which can also be used for the Olympic Games, I am sure that you understand that we cannot give financial support to the organization of the Games or its promotion.
Now, this position has not changed. Ottawa has been supporting Montreal for the holding of the Games since the beginning. The federal government states that it will keep its promises, that it will do its duty, but that is all. And I disagree with the comments made earlier during the debate by the member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) who said, and I quote:
-it is Canada which has chosen Montreal as the city which will represent our country for the 1976 Olympic Games . . . therefore we must not make any mistake . . . In view of the secretive manner in which the Prime Minister has handled all this from the beginning.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that there has been no secret dealings or underhand practices behind this. The formal statements of the Prime Minister are very clear, and at no time have we tried to go through the back door in order to do some things or to prevent some things from being done. The position is quite clear and I think that it is very well understood by both Montreal and the Olympic Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help stressing-and with malice to none-that the attitude of the Progressive Conservative party towards the Olympic Games has been, to say the least, confused and even quite involved, especially in the last election. At that time, the official opposition party took great care not to take an official stand on the 1976 Olympic Games. Instead, the hon. members opposite were suggesting a national policy on sports as vague as could be. I admit, however, that their position has become clear during the debate on this bill and I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) on the remarks he made in this House. I wish he could have a good influence on all his colleagues so that they will all use the same frank and strong language, because, unfortunately, we have heard far too many inconsistencies in the remarks of some of his colleagues on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we have been taken to task and maybe we still are, because in some cases, we are unable to give at


Olympic Bill
this stage specific guarantees about the anticipated revenues through the sale of Olympic coins and stamps. In the same breath, our colleagues opposite blame the government for allowing the Royal Canadian Mint to get ready for the minting of these Olympic commemorative coins.
On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, the opposition members who sat on the committee spoke abundantly about the shameless deficit that will be incurred by holding the games. On the other hand, they presented an amendment for the sole purpose of limiting the amount of money that will be handed to the Olympics Committee.
After speaking at length and very highly about the games, they presented an amendment which would greatly limit the possible financing of those games by setting at $450 millions the total value of coins that could be minted and circulated.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, some members of the opposition sharply accused the government of not wanting to finance the games directly. However none of them wished to move an amendment which would have modified Bill C-196 that way.
Nevertheless, I welcome the support of a very large majority of members from the official opposition.
I am glad they took such a position and I wish to tell them that I fully expect their most thorough co-operation when the time comes to promote the sale of coins and stamps limited and issued with this Parliament's authorization.
I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian government will play an extremely important and foremost role in the success or the failure of the 1976 Olympics. This government is ready to do what should be done to ensure that this undertaking meets with the most complete success. The international scope and the fall-outs that will result for Canada imply a concern on the part of the government at the level of services connected with the games, which are of federal jurisdiction. That is how the participation of federal departments will take place normally and to a great extent without involving any extraordinary expenses.
I can say that about fifteen departments will be directly or indirectly concerned with the organization of the Olympic Games of 1976.
First of all, the Department of External Affairs will be responsible for the formal arrangements occasioned by the visits from numerous foreign dignitaries, and will provide valuable assistance for the coordination and advertising of the Games through our embassies. As a matter of fact, His Excellency General Commissioner Rousseau has been loaned by this Department to the Organization Committee of the Olympic Games.
The Manpower and Immigration Department through its Manpower Centres will help COJO when recruiting casual employees required for the Games. The Immigration Division will also be involved in the coordination of the entry into this country of the numerous athletes, officials and visitors.
As far as the National Defence Department is concerned, it will provide the necessary security in connection with the numerous sporting events.

The Department of National Revenue will share in the reception of visitors by providing the necessary additional staff.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, will carry out the very important duties of security co-ordinating body in co-operatin with both provincial and city police forces, in Montreal as well as in Kingston.
Other government agencies will fulfill their normal responsibilities and take an active part in the holding of the games. Suffice it to say that the Departments of Environment, Agriculture, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Public Works as well as Information Canada and various other agencies will lend a precious and helping hand in the organization and holding of the games.
I should like to say a few words on the matter of federal services and agencies which will result in major expenses which, by the way, have already been made public and which will be incurred within the next three years.
In the vital field of security, the federal government is responsible for providing the Olympic Games with security arrangements capable of ensuring the protection of
9,000	athletes, some 4,000 journalists and more than 250,000 spectators who will see the games every day.
The government has also allocated a grant of some $25 million to the CBC which, at the broadcasting agency of the host country, will look after the radio and television coverage of the Olympic Games.
This money will enable all Canadians to watch the various competitions at home thanks to radio and television. To the very many foreign commentators who will cover the games for their own countries we will offer a complete range of radio and television facilities. It is estimated that over one billion people across the world will receive reports on the Olympics Games from Montreal in 1976 and by the same token get to know better our wonderful country.
Finally, the funds allocated under CMHC programs will depend on the number of housing units built in the Olympic village and will be paid out to the extent that those units will meet the usual standards of the corporation.
I would also like to stress the importance of the role that will be played by the department of National Health and Welfare which, without making any direct financial contribution to the organization of the Olympic Games, will also participate in a very important way through Sports Canada in their preparation. Assistance programs for the preparation of teams, the training of referees and judges, the organization of clinics, and travel and shelter grants for Canadian athletes participating in national and international competitions are as many accomplishments already underway. That department will also be subsidizing national amateur sports associations which will organize competitions across the country in coming years.
The "Mission 76" co-ordination committee will ensure that our Canadian athletes can participate in international events in order to acquire preparatory experience for the 1976 games. Thus our young Canadians will go to the World Student Games in Moscow next August, the Com-


monwealth Games in New Zealand next February and the Pan-American Games in Chili in 1975. They will also have the opportunity of participating in competitions to be held domestically, particularly the Canada Summer Games which will be held in coming days in New Westminster and Burnaby, British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the government of Canada responded to the request made by the city of Montreal and the Olympic committee by drafting the bill before us. This act will make it possible to collect revenues through the issue and sale of special commemorative stamps and Olympic coins as well as through the organization of a national lottery. In this way, the government will ensure the basic financing of the Olympic Games without taxing directly the Canadian taxpayer.
As all hon. members know, the Post Office Department will issue commemorative stamps to mark the staging of the 1976 Olympic Games. The first series of stamps, if the government passes this bill in the next few days, will be issued on September 20. These will be the first two stamps of a series of very high quality stamps which we intend to issue. These two stamps will have low nominal value, i.e. the value most frequently used to pay postage.
As minister responsible for the sale of the Olympic commemorative stamps and coins, I should like to reassure hon. members and all Canadians who could be somewhat apprehensive as to our issuing programs and the means that will be used to provide for their sale in Canada as well as abroad. First I should like to tell them that a marketing advisory committee will be set up and include all the people concerned in this coin program, including the federal departments and COJO.
I should like to tell them also that I will have the pleasure of leading a group of experts who will supervise all aspects of marketing within a new branch that my department will create for those special programs.
With the help of those two groups of sales experts and thanks to a market study and a publicity promotion, I am confident that the Canadian government will be very aptly and sensibly advised as to its sales program, its marketing methods and as to the choice of the institutions and agents who will co-operate in the sale.
May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate my confidence in those prospective sales. We rely very much upon the international market and our program has already aroused much interest in foreign countries. Half of our production will probably be sold in North America and we have every reason to believe that we can rely on a great number of clients in the wealthiest countries in Europe and Asia.
There is throughout the world an increasing interest in precious metals and their products, such as coins. The intrinsic value of our collectors' items and of our numismatic samples will be such that Canadian Olympic coins will surely draw the attention of the whole world.
The collectors' market is very large. We shall direct our efforts towards that sector of the market that is already obviously interested in such articles, be they of a numismatic or philatelic nature. Moreover, we can count on the interest of all Canadians who will see in these issues an
Olympic Bill
opportunity of directly supporting the Olympic Games and to do so freely here, in this country.
It must be realized once and for all that these Olympic coins and stamps will give all Canadians a unique opportunity of supporting the games and pave the way for other countries that cannot now hope to finance the games but that will some day be able to through the self-financing procedures that Canada will have been the first country to attempt successfully.
In conclusion, I would like to say to many members who would like the Canadian government to serve as a substitute for the City of Montreal and assume the entire responsibility for these games that it is in fact a city which is getting the games, assuming the responsibility for them, taking the task of building the required facilities. A country cannot therefore act as substitute for a city, according to the criteria of the international organization committee of the Olympic Games and there we must follow the long established rules of the International Olympic Committee.
I feel the time has come for this House to support what the COJO and the City of Montreal have been asking us for a long time, namely to support a bill allowing selffinancing of the 1976 Olympic Games.
I am convinced that the 1976 Games will offer all Canadians, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a splendid opportunity to make a national effort without equal since the extraordinary festivities of our 1967 centennial. All Canada and especially our youth, can prove one more, at the Olympic Games, that our national pride and will to excell are without equal, in the world.
We had this great feeling when we watched the performance of an athlete like Karen Magnussen or those of Team Canada during the Russia-Canada series. We all had this warm feeling of satisfaction in seeing these Canadians take up the challenge of the best athletes in front of the world.
I am convinced that all Canadians from coast to coast will relive these same emotions, these same sensations during the Olympics Games of 1976.
I therefore invite all hon. members to join in this Canadian endeavour in which the whole world will see another proof of Canadian initiative and unity.
The hour has come for all Canadians to co-operate. I therefore ask all hon. members to rally round us as soon as Bill C-196 has won the support of the majority.
[ English]


Mr. Dan Hollands (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight not to delay unduly the debate on the Olympic bill but to congratulate the Mayor of Montreal for bringing the games to Canada. In this he has shown great ingenuity. We should all be proud of athletic progress in Canada wherever it takes place. In many quarters the method of financing approved by the federal government is deemed to be devious. But if the system works, members of all parties will be happy.
I rise tonight to say that we in Edmonton, Alberta, are going to host the 1978 Commonwealth games, and I would like some assurance from the government that we in the


Olympic Bill
city of Edmonton will be treated with kindness equal to that which we on this side have shown to the holding of the Olympic games in Montreal.
It is not too early to start planning for the Commonwealth games. Over the past year a number of people in Edmonton have worked hard to get those games for Edmonton. The Exhibition Association is now in the process of building a coliseum, and again I hope the minister will give me some assurance that the people of Edmonton will be given consideration equal to that shown the people of Montreal.
We in Edmonton are proud that we have some outstanding athletes. Those athletes will develop if we hold the Olympic games and Commonwealth games in Canada. I repeat, I hope the minister will give an assurance tonight that the same consideration will be given to the Commonwealth games in Edmonton in 1978 as is given to the Olympic games in Montreal in 1976. I would not have risen tonight had I managed to ask the minister for this assurance during question period this afternoon, but I rise now and ask him if will he give that assurance.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not the only member of parliament to have received a number of letters over the past year and a half objecting to the holding of the Olympic games in Canada because, it is argued this country cannot afford the cost, which is estimated at somewhere between $300 million and $500 million.
I am opposed to the holding of the Olympic games not because Canada cannot afford that kind of expenditures, and not because I am opposed to the encouragement of sports and recreation. I am opposed to the Olympic games because I believe, on the basis of our past experience, that we will do quite poorly in the 1976 Olympics. We will do poorly simply because we have not had the facilities in this country to provide proper training for our young people, our potential athletes. We do not have fully qualified coaches to develop the skills of our athletes.
If we want to compete in international sport and at the same time avoid our athletes having a poor record and somewhat disgracing the country, then I believe we must build the necessary facilities to allow our young people the training they must have.
I am not opposed to the expenditure of $300 million to $500 million on athletics, but I am opposed to the expenditure of that kind of money in one city. I would oppose it whether we had the Olympics in Vancouver, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg or Montreal. I think Canada should spend something in the neighbourhood of $200 million to $300 million on building sports facilities in all the major cities of the country. Let us have Olympic size swimming pools and diving platforms in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Halifax. Let us also have track facilities in those cities. Let us have hockey rinks. Let us not forget that the best hockey players in this country barely beat the Russians in that relatively recent competition.
That is what we need, not expenditures in one city. I would like to see us do for sports what was done for the 
arts some years ago through the Canada Council, and that is set up a trust fund of $100 million or $200 million. That way we would not have to depend on a particular government or a particular minister to provide the money required for a real program to train the coaches needed in the various athletic competitions that are held during the Olympics. Let us have a fund and use what it earns each year to train the coaches.
It has been suggested that we ought to approve this bill because Montreal needs an economic boost, that it has been left behind in the competition with Toronto and Toronto is growing faster. Neither I nor members of this party have ever oposed any proposal to improve the economic or social life of Montreal or any other city. If the vote were to allocate $300 million or $500 million to improve living and working conditions in the city of Montreal, we would support it. Montreal has tens of thousands of children living in houses which are a disgrace to any modern city. Yet what we are proposing is not to give CMHC the financial resources to encourage Montreal to build public housing units, but to give Montreal, through CMHC, enough money to build an Olympic village which will house something like 10,000 or 15,000 athletes and related personnel. We do not know how many of these units will be allocated for public housing, but on the basis of the experience of the United States we do know that if it were to be devoted to public housing it would end up as a ghetto to breed crime and everything else.
Montreal is a city of 2'/2 million people which dumps almost 100 per cent of its sewage into the St. Lawrence River-untreated sewage. If the proposal were to spend federal money to help Montreal build a modern sewage system, not a single member of the New Democratic Party in Parliament would oppose it. What we are opposing today and will vote against is the expenditure of a substantial amount of money in one city, the city of Montreal, in a way which we believe to be completely wrong.
We are not against sports, we are not against Montreal, we are not against Quebec, but we believe that to hold the Olympics anywhere in Canada in 1976 is a mistake. We believe that the money that the people of Canada will be required to pay in one way or another could be better spent in this country, and better spent in the province of Quebec. Because we believe that, Mr. Speaker, we intend to vote against this bill.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I bow to my colleagues; I know they will be interested in what I have to say. If there was an Olympic medal to be given for kicking the can, I am sure it would be won by a member of this House. As a matter of fact, I think the best way to end this debate would probably be to give out a few medals. I should like to recommend that the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois) be considered for a medal for "jumping to conclusions". During our committee meetings he displayed great skill and style, and it is a matter of record that he jumped to more conclusions than anyone else on the committee.
Probably the most outstanding performer of all those on the committee was the hon. member from Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose). He not only beat all his party colleagues, but he had the fastest about-face in the time trials. Not only did he about-face, he turned himself inside out while


doing an about-face. Even the most experienced gymnasts blanch at the thought of such a feat.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that an about-face in itself is extremely difficult, especially for a member of the NDP. We find the hon. member for Fraser Valley West on February 2, as reported at page 899 of Hansard, saying:
My party welcomes the statement by the Prime Ministei (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.
He went on to talk about keeping to budget and said he looked forward to Canada leading the way to staging the Olympic games on a budget scale. But when this bill was brought into this House on second reading, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, whose only sporting credentials are that he owns a jock strap and has athlete's foot, led a spirited battle against staging the Olympic games in Canada.
Then to show off to all who cared to see, after pleading in February for Canada to lead the way in staging a "budget Olympics"-that is his term, Mr. Speaker-after pleading for economy, we find him voting against an amendment to limit the amount paid to the Olympic committee through the sale of coins. How can you compete against talent like that? So I award him a medal, Mr. Speaker. I think he deserves it. As for his colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney), well, he led the way in committee with points of order and deserves at least an honourable mention for his efforts.
Of course, we could not have really made much progress with this bill had the stage not been set by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He started the bill on its way with considerable confusion, which is normal. Many hon. members recall our early questions about the Olympics in January of this year, just after this Twenty-ninth Parliament opened. Hon. members will recall the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) directing a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), only to be told he did not answer for the Olympics. They will then recall several questions being put to the right hon. the Prime Minister about the Olympics. The answers were obscure and contained little information, which again is normal. Then in reply to direct questioning he told a surprised House that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) would answer questions on the Olympics.
Well, now, this was clearly no way to start off on the Olympics. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs wears slip-on shoes because he cannot tie his shoelaces. That is about par for the course.
After watching the performance of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) when he appeared before the committee, we really should award him a medal for being the most evasive witness. His footwork was fantastic. He would say one thing, then another, then contradict the first statement; then, when pressed, he blamed it all on the translation. Anyone who attended the late sittings will recall how the hon. members opposite barked when the Postmaster General commanded. When he shook his head they placed their gags in their mouths.
Olympic Bill
Of course, we all know about the famous letters from the Prime Minister to Premier Bourassa, Mayor Drapeau and Mr. Rousseau, and the famous guarantee replies he waved before the House before he tabled them. As the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) pointed out, they have little legal value and would not stand up in court.
If we could give a prize for a sloppy bill, we would award it to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). He should also be given honourable mention for his efforts on the silver blades. He skated all around the bill, and it appeared to many of us that he was wrongly placed for he was clearly more evasive than was the Postmaster General. But he did his compulsory figures well, except they did not add up. He could not explain the difference in the budget drawn up by the Olympic committee and his own Treasury Board. After two nights of skating around the problem, someone whispered in his ear that the Olympic committee would run a lottery and settle the deficit in this way. I think that official deserves honourable mention because the minister at that point was about to throw in the towel.
The events we watched were amazing. We learned that coins which are to be minted are to be sold at a discount. Never in our history have we sold our money at a discount, so we put in an amendment to stop that.


An hon. Member:: What happened?


William James Kempling: We learned that COJO was classed as an amateur athletic association and would be eligible for grants under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act. There is a slick way to balance the budget. We will have to watch it, and will have to watch future estimates submitted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West drew our attention to this in committee; I commend him for that.
Then, to our surprise, we found that Bill C-196 was open-ended. There was no limit as to the amount of coinage that could be minted, so we put an amendment in to cover that. We also found that there was no limit on the profit or seigniorage that could accrue to COJO, in spite of the fact that COJO had asked for a specific amount of money. So we covered that with an amendment.
As well, we defined by way of an amendment what was meant by postal related products, as this term was unclear even to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). All in all we submitted six amendments and one new clause. The bill only had 12 clauses; it was printed on six pages. We made several significant changes to the bill. We put in several safeguards and generally made the bill a little more palatable than it was when we had first read it.
The committee meetings were the worst I have attended. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) remarked that they were the worst meetings he had attended in 20 years. The turning point came about two o'clock one morning, after a particularly bitter meeting. The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) had previously blown the meeting by confusing the hand signals of the Postmaster General. The President of the Treasury Board and the Postmaster General stood talking to two members of my party at two o'clock in the morning. I will not betray the confidences of


Olympic Bill
private conversations, but the two ministers at this point realized we really wanted the bill passed, and that some straight talk was necessary with no more "fancy Dan stuff". We just wanted straight talk from here on, or it would be no show.
From that point we made good progress, and the bill was in due course amended. It passed through the committee stage and came before this House on the report stage. The tragedy of the bitterness that was evident at the committee meetings was really all unnecessary. If the President of the Treasury Board or the Postmaster General had had any foresight, they would have circulated an information paper and avoided much of the time spent in debate in committee. They would have had an explanation at hand to explain the difference between the COJO budget and the Treasury Board budget. The Postmaster General would not have had to hide behind the translators. The Master of the Mint could have told us openly that he had proceeded in February to design the Olympic coins; he could have revealed his authority for such action and thus saved the committee much time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that all this is behind us and I think it would be better if we ended this debate on a conciliatory note. When this bill passes we will see the people at COJO swing into action. I wish them well. I hope that the Olympics in 1976 are a great success. I hope we will be able to capture some of the spirit of the games. I hope that those who expressed doubts about the financial aspects of the Olympics will be proven wrong. We want the Olympics to succeed. We hope the Olympics will become a symbol to the young people of this country and to the world.
We hope that all those persons of the press who have up to now been overly critical of the Olympics will, with the passage of this bill, climb on board and help us to make the 1976 Olympics a success.


An hon. Member:: Has the hon. member finished yet?


William James Kempling: I will speak for about 30 seconds more. Let the Olympic motto, citius, altius, fortius, become the national motto of our youth. The Olympic Oath states;
-in the name of all competitors I promise that we will take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules which govern them in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the name of our teams.
The Olympic Creed says:
The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.
Let us resolve, Mr. Speaker, that this oath and creed will become our Spirit of '76.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: You have five minutes.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Someone says I have five minutes. I will try to be brief. I do not think the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) needs defending. Someone said he is inconsistent. I remind the House that consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds. It seems to me the hon. member was flexible enough to examine this bill carefully and see

the tremendous holes which have developed in it since we first looked at the financing of these games.
Many here have said that they are not opposed to the Olympic games but are opposed to the method of financing. I do not speak for my party when I say that I am opposed to the Olympic games, regardless of the Mickey Mouse method of financing that has been brought forward. Even a cursory review of the history of the last two games ought to convince anyone that they make no real contribution to international understanding.
When you remember, Mr. Speaker, the assassination of the Israelis at the Munich games and the slaughter of Mexican students in the 1968 games, you realize that the games do nothing whatsoever to advance or encourage the health of participating athletes. If the games do not do either of these things, why should we bother with them? It will be far better to restructure the Olympics and eliminate the national chauvinism that goes with the games than tolerate them as they now are.
Let us look at the effect the Olympics will have on this country and compare them with the kinds of national athletic events that we ourselves sponsor outside the international field, events like the one in my riding. I am referring to the Canada summer games in New Westminster. For a federal investment of less than $2 million, 3,000 athletes will participate. How many Canadian athletes will participate in the Olympic games?


An hon. Member:: Many.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: What real contribution will we make to national fitness through these games and with this fantastic investment of money?
The hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) said this afternoon that the games are desirable because there is too much emphasis on professionalism in this country I agree. The Olympics do not represent amateurism; they represent "shamateurism," and we have known it for a long time. The Olympic oath is more honoured in the breach than otherwise. The Olympics are simply another extension of professional sport; and it is appropriate that the edifices which will be created for the games and funded by the people of Canada will probably be used for professional football and professional baseball in Montreal.
The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said that we should not worry so much about the lack of community facilities since the facilities to be built will stay after the games. I think it is far better to spend the money this way and advance the cause of genuine community sport than spend it on the kind of wasteful extravaganza that is to take place.
If we spent that same amount of money on Montreal and the surrounding area in providing facilities, we could have Olympic champions for the next 40 years instead of the wasteful circus that is going to take place.
The comment has been made that this is an anti-French position. On the contrary, this is a pro-French position. It is the kind of position that supports the provision of money for thousands of people in Quebec who are denied adequate community facilities. Instead of giving them these, we are giving them circuses. I was delighted with


the speech of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). His attitude towards these games is genuinely patriotic. He understands the true social significance of what is being done with regard to those games.
I want to read part of an editorial that appeared in the Windsor Star. I quote:
Canada should seriously consider the implementation of this sports-for-all program. The demand for sport facilities is there, the goals are desirable, and most important, the concept of financing the program with would-be Olympic funds should be agreeable to the taxpayer.
I believe it is time for the government to abandon the Olympic Games, subdue its hysterical concern to develop Olympic athletes, and place emphasis on public recreation.
Sport is not for the elite performer-it is for everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the desire of the House to proceed with the passage of this bill this evening. I assure Your Honour and all members I am not going to prolong the debate on this bill far beyond the normal hour of adjournment. If I request five minutes or so after ten o'clock, I hope I will have the permission of the House. I will sincerely try to limit my remarks to the time between now and ten o'clock to make my remarks on this bill.
I have severe reservations whether this is the right way to raise money for the promotion and development of sport facilities to enable Canada to be host to the 1976 Olympics. Having been a politician for a number of years and representing a constituency in Alberta where Social Credit finance has been advanced, I am not particularly keen on this method of raising money. For the past 15 years I have had some success in rejecting Social Credit finance. I have some degree of hesitation in suddenly finding myself having to accept the theory of Social Credit financing in supporting that which appeals to my nationalistic pride and to my physical well-being, namely amateur sports.
I have always considered myself something of an athlete.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am somewhat prepared to play the game, whether it be baseball, fastball, hockey or football. I have run a few races in my day and have entered myself in some track and field competitions, such as hop, skip and jump. Even with my desire to prove myself in those sports, I fail to find myself overwhelmed all of a sudden by becoming involved in voting for Social Credit theory. As much as I might like my confreres in the far right of the chamber, I have not to this day accepted their philosophy.
Whether this House likes it nor not, the bill before us endorses their principle and concept. Is it good for those things we hold dear to our hearts, such as hop, skip and jump, the Olympics, pole-vaulting and other rugged sports that Canadians hold dear to their hearts? Is it good for them but not for those who are handicapped, or deprived of that food, shelter and clothing which we say is a necessity for all Canadians living within the bountiful
Olympic Bill
boundaries of our nation? I do not think one should hasten the passage of a bill so endeared.
It causes me some concern to look upon the provision for coinage, stampage and lotteries that we have approved for this purpose but for no other. For a number of years I have sponsored a lottery bill in this House. It has repeatedly been rejected. I have always paid close attention to the postage privileges that are enjoyed, but on this occasion we are going one step further and saying that coinage is also necessary.
I do not want to repeat what has been said before with regard to coinage. However, I have a letter in my possession which was written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by Mr. Rousseau, chairman and commissioner general of the Olympic games. In his letter he states:
May I emphasize that the self-financing formula in question presents a very important advantage:-
I would be the first to agree with that. It certainly does present an important advantage. He went on to say:
-it can be drawn up in general terms so that it can readily be applied, when necessary, in the case of other major events that the federal government may want to support.
I am thinking in particular of the Commonwealth Games that are to take place in Edmonton in 1978 and perhaps other international games that might be held in Vancouver, Halifax or Toronto.
I do not know about other international games that may be held in Vancouver, Halifax or Toronto. I do know that the Canadian summer games will be held in Lethbridge in 1975, and I hope the federal government will make a sincere contribution toward them. This person linked the all international games as one. He suggested the 1976 Olympics should be linked relatively closely to the Commonwealth games to be held in Edmonton in 1978.
Before this bill is passed, I hope the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will state whether the same consideration will be given to the Commonwealth games that are designated to be held in Edmonton in 1978.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have not been in close contact with the mayor or any other person with regard to the Edmonton games, although I have received some correspondence. I have been asked to be an honorary director of the 1978 games and I have accepted that privilege. By so doing, I must pay close attention to the financial obligations those games will place upon the citizens of Edmonton, the province of Alberta and Canada.
Before proceeding with the passage of this bill, I hope the President of the Treasury Board will say that he agrees to the issuing of coins, postage and lotteries for the Commonwealth games in order to sustain the Commonwealth games. Let us support amateur athletic ability in the countries of the Commonwealth.
Having said that, I recognize the hour is closely approaching ten o'clock. I hope the President of the Treasury Board will rise quickly before then, before anyone in this House has a desire to call it ten o'clock, and assure us that these same privileges will be afforded the city of Edmonton when it plays host to the Commonwealth


Olympic Bill
games. If he would do this, it occurs to me the House might not see the clock and might readily agree to pass the bill. But if he does not find himself in a position to do so, then I think there are members here who would call it ten o'clock, in which case we could not pass this bill tonight. I notice the hon. gentleman appears anxious to rise, and in these circumstances I quickly resume my seat.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker an invitation has been issued to me. I only wish I had the authority to respond in a positive way and give the assurance the hon. gentleman is seeking.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have been considering at some length the measures which should be taken by the government, by Canada, in respect of the Olympic games. This is a program tailored for the Olympic games. Consideration has not yet been given to the Commonwealth games, which I understand will come two years later, but it would be my own personal view that the Liberal government would not be prepared to see done either for or against one part of the country something which it would not be prepared to do, to the extent it was appropriate, either for or against another part of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It appears the House is ready for the question. The question is on the amendment (Mr. Peters). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Peters) which was negatived on the following division:
++NAYS
Messrs:
Allard	Fox	McCainAllmand	Frank	McGrathAndras	Gauthier	McKenzieBaker	(Roberval)	McKinleyBaldwin	Gauthier	Morin (Mrs.)Beattie	(Ottawa East)	Muir(Hamilton	Gendron	MunroMountain)	Gillies	(Esquimalt-Beatty	Goyer	Saanich)(Wellington-	Gray	MunroGrey-Dufferin-	Guay (Levis)	(Hamilton East)Waterloo)	Guilbault	O'SullivanBeaudoin	Herbert	OuelletBechard	Higson	PaproskiBegin (Miss)	Hurlburt	PelletierBell	Isabelle	(llochelaga)Blais	Jelinek	PennerBlenkarn	Jerome	PortelanceBlouin	Kempling	PoulinBoisvert	Knowles	Prud'hommeBoulanger	(Norfolk-	RailtonBreau	Haldimand)	ReidBuchanan	Lachance	RondeauCaccia	Lajoie	RoyCampbell	Lalonde	(Laval)Caouette	Lambert	Sauve (Mrs.)(Charlevoix)	(Edmonton West)	SharpCaouette	Langlois	Smith(Temiscamingue)	La Salle	(Saint-Jean)Caron	Lawrence	StackhouseClarke	Leblanc	Stanfield(Vancouver	(Laurier)	StevensQuadra)	Lefebvre	StewartClermont	L'Heureux	(Okanagan-Coates	Loiselle	Kootenay)Comtois	MacDonald	StewartCullen	(Egmont)	(Cochrane)Darling	MacDonald (Miss)	TowersDinsdale	(Kingston and	TrudalDionne	the Islands)	TurnerDrury	MacEachen	(LondonDube	MacGuigan	East)Dupras	Maclnnis	WagnerDuquet	(Cape Breton-	WatsonEllis	East Richmond)	WhicherEthier	Madill	YanakisFairweather	Marceau	Yewchuk-114.Faulkner	Marchand	Fleming	(Kamloops-	Foster	Cariboo)	
(Division No. 36)		Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
	YEAS		Mr. Peters: Ten o'clock.
	Messrs:


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Barnett Benjamin Broadbent Firth Grier Harding Harney	Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Leggatt Lewis Maclnnis (Mrs.) (Vancouver Kingsway) Nelson	Nesdoly Ny strom Orlikow Peters Rodriguez Rose Rowland Saltsman Symes-21.	Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has called it ten o'clock. I have to remind hon. members that a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been put and seconded at this time. May we have order, please. [ Translation} Order. Might I remind hon. members that this House is still sitting. The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) has the floor.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss the implications of the question I addressed recently to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) on the subject of the shuttle service between Toronto and Ottawa. More than 1400 passengers fly back and forth by Air Canada between those two cities on any typical business day. Their number will increase as each year the nation's capital becomes the place where businessmen must come for negotiations with, and decisions from, a growing number of federal agencies which are making this city the head office of almost every enterprise in Canada. It is therefore time we looked more closely at ways of improving the vital air link between these two cities, each of them a political and financial capital.
One improvement might be a shuttle service, since it is often difficult for a person to know when his business in Toronto or Ottawa will be finished. He may make reservations only to find he must stay longer. Then he must attempt new reservations, which often are difficult to arrange, and on some days, such as Friday, impossible. The advantage of the shuttle would be that the individual would know that at certain times planes would be leaving and that he would have a number of chances to get a flight to Toronto or Ottawa.
Shuttle services are provided now by Eastern Airlines in a network that links Boston, Washington, Newark, New York and Montreal. In the Montreal-New York shuttle, each passenger is guaranteed a seat on the plane. When a plane fills up, another is provided so that no one is left standing at the terminal. In spite of this guarantee the cost is no greater than that of the economy flight on Air Canada from Montreal to New York. Thus, anyone travelling between those cities knows that at scheduled hours he can get a flight just by showing up at the terminal with his $34.
Pacific Western Airlines runs a shuttle between Calgary and Edmonton. It does not guarantee a seat to everyone who shows up but at peak times it does add extra planes. At rush hour times it provides a flight every half hour. Both privately-owned companies inform me that their shuttle services are operating in the black, Pacific Western having operated the Calgary-Edmonton shuttle for many years.
I therefore urge the minister to recommend that Air Canada look again at this proposal. If there is good reason why it should not be tried out in the Toronto-Ottawa service, I recommend this compromise: let Air Canada add extra planes during certain rush periods, or, at least, let it provide a shuttle in Toronto's terminal No. 2, itself almost a mile long. The present jitney service is totally inadequate. Often the cars are not working; never are there enough. Surely the ministry of transport can do as good a
Adjournment Debate
job at terminal No. 2 as the House of Commons buses do for M.Ps here. If the minister cannot give us a shuttle between Ottawa and Toronto, let him at least give us one between one end of terminal No. 2 and the other.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, further to the hon. member's question about domestic shuttle service possibilities between Toronto and Montreal or Toronto and Ottawa, I should like, first of all, to elaborate on the rapid air system which is now in effect between Toronto and Montreal.
A year ago Air Canada introduced the rapid air system in order to better serve the local needs of Toronto-Mont-real passengers. Although the rapid air system is not a full shuttle in the open, no reservations sense, those people who do show up without reservations are usually accommodated on the flight of their choice. Most of the exceptions occur at peak traffic time, when passengers with no reservations may have to wait for one or more flights. Rapid air is, however, a very frequent service, contrary to U.S. shuttle services which tend to operate every hour or two. Rapid air offers an average of 22 flights per day in each direction.
A shuttle is just one of the number of ways of carrying passengers, but it cannot be introduced without taking into account the travel demands of the public at large. For example, many of the flights now operating as part of the rapid air system carry passengers beyond Toronto and Montreal to other parts of the country. Scheduling these passengers through the Toronto-Montreal corridors has been beneficial to them because it has permitted greater flight frequency to these other points. Similarly, the local Toronto-Montreal passengers have benefited because these through flights have meant a more frequent rapid air schedule.
In addition to rapid air, in the past year Air Canada has introduced an innovated pricing structure on domestic services that has lowered average fare levels considerably, mainly through general fare reduction on long-haul services and through all peak 30 per cent "Explore Canada" fare discounts on long and short-haul services.
These two programs demonstrate that Air Canada does its best to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible prices, and I am advised that further improvements can be expected over the next year.


EXHIBITIONS-EXPO '74, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON- REASON FOR FAILURE OF CANADA TO HAVE PAVILION
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the House of Commons I asked the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) why Canada had decided not to participate in Expo '74 which is to be held in Spokane, in the State of Washington, in view of the fact that months ago Canada indicated that a Canadian pavilion would be constructed for Canadian exhibits. I also asked the minister if the government would reconsider its position on this very important matter.
6028


Adjournment Debate
In replying to the question the minister indicated that the government had given the matter a great deal of careful study and had come to the conclusion that there were other and more important priorities for the $1.5 million than the building of a Canadian pavilion at Expo '74.
In my frank opinion the government has received some very poor advice in regard to this matter. I do not know what kind of study was carried out, but it looks to me as though some civil servants tucked away in a ministerial office in Ottawa have again scratched out an important project simply because they knew very little about it. This is another example of federal bureaucracy ignoring important issues in Canada.
It is my intention this evening to outline for the minister a number of reasons why I feel the government should re-consider its position on this very important matter.
The first point I would like to make is that a Canadian pavilion at Expo '74 would be an excellent investment as far as favourable publicity for Canada is concerned. There will be many hundreds of thousands of visitors to Expo '74 from all over the United States and many other countries. The excellent opportunity which this offers to publicize our country and its many assets should not be passed over. Spokane is very close to the Canadian border and a number of Canadian exhibits to advertise what our country has to offer in the way of tourist attractions could generate tens of millions of dollars in tourist revenue, even during the time the exposition was in progress. It seems to me that this one major aspect alone is well worth the investment involved.
The tourist industry has become a major revenue-producing asset for Canada. We spend vast sums of money at every level to promote it. Canadian scenery is something we can sell over and over again without depleting the resource, yet when a major opportunity presents itself to us to really promote our scenic grandeur, at a time when many hundreds of thousands of visitors will be within a short drive of the Canadian border, we find our federal government unaware of the opportunities presented by Expo '74.
A Canadian pavilion would not cater only to tourism. It could be the display centre for our arts, crafts and a host of other Canadian skills which we wish the world to know about. This investment in a pavilion would be the most economic and effective type of advertising that any country could devise. It is not a one-shot affair, for the advertising carries over for several months. This is something the federal government should not take lightly.
One of the most disappointing aspects of the federal government's short-sighted decision will be the feeling by many western Canadians that once again Ottawa has failed to help promote western Canada, which stands to gain most by Expo '74 and any federal participation in it. It is discouraging to the large number of organizations in British Columbia and Alberta which have been promoting Expo '74 to realize that our federal government wants to have no part of it. If private organizations and provincial departments realize the value of Expo '74 to the Canadian scene, then surely the federal government can make funds available for a Canadian pavilion and give some real leadership in promoting it.

There are many other aspects which enter into the picture of Canadian participation in Expo '74, including that of good public relations with our neighbour to the south. It seems rather odd that the Canadian government, after committing itself to participate in Expo '74, suddenly decides that a Canadian pavilion cannot be built. No doubt some reason can be advanced for the federal decision, but it will appear to many Canadians to be just another weak federal excuse to overlook Canadian interests, especially in the west.
There is another aspect of Expo '74 which I would like to bring to the attention of the government. A Canadian pavilion would mean a large number of jobs for young Canadians over a period of several months. A major increase of tourists to Canada during this period would also result in a large number of additional summer jobs for young Canadians. Active promotions by means of federal participation in Expo '74 could be a major factor in improving the job situation, and this aspect should not be overlooked.
Time does not permit me to expand further on this topic, Mr. Speaker. Frankly I feel the federal government has made a serious mistake by withdrawing from its proposed participation in Expo '74. I would urge the minister and the government to immediately reconsider the decision made yesterday and I trust that any reconsideration will result in a Canadian pavilion at Expo '74.


Mr. Pierre de Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be most difficult not to agree with the hon. member when he speaks of the benefits of Expo '74. The problem lies in the cost, and I feel that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) gave the hon. member quite a clear answer this afternoon.
As he explained, Canada's participation in the Spokane World Exhibition on the human environnment was studied in detail, and we reached the conclusion that in view of the budgetary restrictions of the government, earmarking credits in the order of $1,850,000 to that end would not be justifiable in 1974. This having been said, I am sure we all hope that Expo '74 will be a real success.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY-QUEBEC-OBLIGATION OF EMPLOYEES IN PASSENGER SERVICE TO BE BILINGUAL
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, the question I put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) on July 19, 1973, which is reported in Hansard at page 5782, reads as follows:
Can he tell the House if the employees of the Canadian National in the Quebec passenger service must be bilingual?
Since I did not get a reply, I want to point out to the House, and in particular to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), that it is unthinkable that in 1973, one should have to ask such questions, after the Canadian government spent millions of dollars to promote bilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, there is at this time in Quebec an explosive political climate in respect of language problems. There-


fore, what is the federal government doing about this ticklish matter? Let me give you some examples of the way Quebecers are treated.
Some of my constituents have complained that CNR employees in the passenger service could only speak English. Others have complained that some governmental services in the National Capital had no bilingual staff.
Also what about departments which are looking for English-speaking unilingual employees saying nothing of messengers who suffer from blatant injustice? By that I mean that there is no difference in pay for a bilingual messenger as compared with an English unilingual one. The same situation prevails for the security personnel of the House of Commons.
I received another complaint this morning; the Public Works Department is advertising an open competition, bearing No. 73-PW-CR-CC-15, for hiring a foreman for various jobs. It is provided on page 3, in the language requirements section, that knowledge of English is essential. Nothing is said about requirements concerning the French language. It seems that this is the procedure followed by most departments with respect to the working language; it is a strange way to implement the language policy announced in this House some time ago.
The purpose of my intervention, Mr. Speaker, is not to play politics, but rather to point out to the government the frequent inadequacies which are observed in all departments so that the leaders of this country may be fair and equitable to all Canadians, whatever their culture.
The government's behaviour which I denounce now is but provocation aimed at French speaking Canadians. Let us recall that during the 1968 general elections, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would enjoy talking to Quebecers about his so-called policy of bilingualism and his just society.
Ever since that time, his promises have fallen into oblivion, as though in a deaf ear. The same applies, by the way, to all the election promises made over the past hundred years.
I shall take a few more minutes to denounce also some opposition members who, during the last election campaign, used French Canadians as a springboard to win seats in some Western ridings at the expense of other parties.
Mr. Speaker, I dare not use the words that are coming to my mind in these circumstances; but I wish all hon. members to know that if I speak tonight it is in an effort to make this government realize the necessity of protecting the unity of our country.
Before my election to this House as member for Rimous-ki, I was often inclined to condemn certain French-Canadians who were saying that life in French Canada
Adjournment Debate
was dreadful. Today, I understand and I can tell where separatism originated from. Wherever they are, to my left, to my right or in front of me, in this House, I have been able to spot the real agitators since the beginning of this session.
In future years, we will have to try by all the means at our disposal to find solutions to enable all Canadians of whatever culture to live in a healthy atmosphere favouring understanding between the different groups so that our people may be against segregation.
In conclusion, I ask the House, Mr. Speaker, to keep a careful watch over our national unity, if we want the Quebecers to keep on paying taxes to allow the federal government to continue its grants to Western Canada.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking tonight on behalf of the Parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay) who is not in Ottawa today.
Since the fall of 1968, all new employees hired to work on passenger trains in the province of Quebec must be bilingual pursuant to agreements concluded with the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers as well as with the Brotherhood of Railway Workers.
Currently, the situation in the province of Quebec may be summarized as follows: out of a total of 416 employees in the passenger service and meal service, only 50 are unilingual English-speaking people, i.e. only 25 out of 150 employees working in passenger trains; however, the latter have at least followed a French course of 17 days.
I am informed that the seniority agreements with the unions involved prevent-for these employees hired prior to 1968-the Canadian National from forbidding the few English-speaking unilingual employees to fill in the passenger trains certain positions which they are entitled to occupy because of their seniority.
However, we are assured that the passenger train services are always provided in both official languages.
It is to be noted that the previous information concerns the St-Lawrence region.
Other trains in Quebec are staffed by personnel from Toronto or Halifax. In both those cities, the knowledge of French is being improved progressively for the personnel likely to work on trains travelling through Quebec, through an appropriate hiring policy and especially French courses.
A bilingual service is offered by the Canadian National at all its passenger stations.
I wish to thank the hon. member who just rose-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I must interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but his time is expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.

Friday, July 27, 1973