1974-04-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the widespread flooding and immense damage to private property by flood waters in the province of Saskatchewan, particularly to such communities as Moose Jaw, Regina and Lumsden, and as the province of Saskatchewan has declared the Moose Jaw area as being in a state of emergency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House call upon the federal government to provide financial assistance to those detrimentally affected by the flood conditions.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have a similar motion with respect to the city of Moose Jaw which suffered millions of dollars of damage over the weekend.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no difficulty in the hon. member putting the motion now, and I recognize him for that purpose.


MOOSE JAW, SASKATCHEWAN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the tragic flood conditions in the city of Moose Jaw during the past few days, which have caused losses amounting to several million dollars, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the government give consideration to declaring the Moose Jaw area a national disaster area.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I remind the House that this is a motion under Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a most urgent matter.
In view of the serious problem of chemical fertilizer supply, as well as the uncertainty regarding the prices farmers will have to pay as sowing time is approaching, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House inquire about the causes of the price increase in this area, and appoint experts to ascertain whether there is a cause-effect relationship between the use of chemical fertilizers and the increasing number of cancer cases and whether Canada would benefit more from a more biological and less chemical type of farm industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


TRANSPORT OF NEEDED MEDICINES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, seconded by the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel):
That in view of the disruption caused to the supply of needed medicines across Canada, particularly to St. John's, Newfoundland, the government consider the use of military aircraft to alleviate the immediate delivery problem.

April 22, 1974
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be consent. The motion will be put. There is a suggestion that an hon. member said no. I will inquire again. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is not unanimous consent.
[DOT] * [DOT]


AIR CANADA
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Air Canada officials have committed and redirected aircraft regularly destined in and out of Newfoundland on April 21, 22 and 23 to other parts of Canada even though the firemen were out for only 24 hours and returned to work on April 21. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That in the opinion of this House the Ministry of Transport should immediately reinstate these flights and that action be taken to correct this discrimination by Air Canada officials against some sectors of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-281, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


William Charles Frank: The purpose of this bill is to change the name of the constituency I represent to a name that will more fully recognize the geographic area it encompasses.


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

Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-27, to facilitate the relocation of railway lines or rerouting of railway traffic in urban areas and to provide financial assistance for work done for the protection, safety and convenience of the public at railway crossings.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an anterisk.)
Mr. Rowland: What steps has Canada taken in order to ensure that Canadian arms and equipment which may have been provided to Portugal through our mutual association in NATO are not being employed against independence movements in Portuguese colonial territories?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As has repeatedly been stated, we have sold no arms to Portugal since 1963. Even sales of non-offensive equipment (such as spare parts and engines for transport aircraft) have been made only on the assurances from Portugal that such equipment will not be used outside the NATO defense area. If evidence were to be produced that Canadian equipment over whose export the Canadian government had control was being used by the Portuguese in Africa, this government would prevent further exports.


Mr. Forrestall: For each of the past five years, what has been (a) the number of air accidents involving Canadian aircraft (b) the number of such accidents that involved fatal injuries (c) the number of fatalities?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The following are the statistics requested with respect to accidents to Canadian registered
aircraft.	(a)	(b)	(c)
	Total	Fatal	
Year	Accidents	Accidents	Fatalities1969	503	62	1341970	531	54	2201971	544	75	1571972	615	84	1601973	715	83	156


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many claims were made against UIC in (a) 1970 (b) 1972?
2.	What were the total amounts paid on these claims?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Order Paper Questions
4.	(a) A letter from the regional office was sent to the districts and the bands in November 1973, advising of the availability of funds to replace unserviceable or worn out equipment, (b) No action was taken by the band but the district office ordered 500 feet of hose, nozzles and adaptors. Until received, 200 feet of hose had been borrowed from another location, but it arrived on the reserve on February 27.
1.	Year
(a)	1970
(b)	1972
2.	Year
1972
Old Act New Act
Total
Old Act New Act
Initial
Claims
1,678,969
2,051,387
2,051,628
Renewal
Claims
581,877
71,400
346,890
418,290
Total
2,260,846
71,641
2,398,277
2,469,918
Gross Benefit Paid $
698,840,100.68
63,870,668.00
1,814,845,947.00
Total	1,878,716,615.00


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Since the inception of the Lockheed L1011 jetliner service by Air Canada, what is the record of on time arrival and departure performance in percentage figures?
2.	Is this percentage satisfactory to Air Canada?
3.	If the record of on time performance is below satisfactory standards, what are the major reasons for failure to achieve an acceptable standard?
4.	Is the mechanical and operating performance of the Lockheed L1011 satisfactory to Air Canada management and is the performance consistent with the predictions of the manufacturer?
5.	(a) How many LlOlls does Air Canada presently own (b) what was the purchase price (c) how many are on order and still to be delivered?
6.	(a) What are the present routes designated for the L1011 (b) are additional routes being proposed and, if so, what are they?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1.


Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development been advised of the death, since the beginning of 1974, of four children at the Kitwancool Indian Reserve which deaths resulted from a fire?
2.	Is it a fact that fire hoses were not provided for the residents of Kitwancool but that a water system and fire hydrants were provided?
3.	Is the minister aware that the only fire hose available was a discarded forest service fire hose which contained at least two holes and which the people at Kitwancool attempted to use to quell the fire in question?
4.	Was a letter sent from the Regional Offices of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development located in Vancouver to Indian Agency Offices in British Columbia at the end of November, 1973 stating that funds were available for the replacement of worn out and broken fire prevention and firefighting equipment and for the purposes of training firefighters and setting up fire prevention programs on Indian Reserves and, if so (a) were the contents of that letter drawn to the attention of the Kitwancools (b) were any steps taken by the department, or any section thereof, to take advantage of the offer contained in the said letter to provide fire hoses for the Kitwancools to go with the fire hydrants?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes.
2.	The water system was installed in 1954 and it was equipped with fire hose.
3.	The firefighting equipment in the village at the time of the fire consisted of dry chemical (ABC) extinguishers, 100 foot hose with nozzle, axes and shovels. The hose was too short to reach from the nearest standpipe and it was also defective.
	Per cent	Per cent
	Departures	Arrivals
	Within	Within
1973	five Minutes	five MinutesMarch	58.5	52.9April	47.2	48.6May	25.7	32.4June	11.0	15.4July	10.7	22.0August	12.6	26.7September	32.3	50.4October	52.1	59.2November	42.2	45.3December	26.7	30.41974	January	27.9	30.9February	47.0	57.0
2 and 3. These percentages are below the system average for all types of aircraft now in Air Canada's fleet. However, this is not unusual for a new aircraft type. As with other new aircraft types introduced in the past, level of performance will improve as the airline gains operating experience with the L 1011.
4.	Mechanical performance has reached 95 per cent mechanical dispatch reliability. This level of performance is comparable with that of the two main U.S. carriers using this equipment. Performance goals set by the manufacturer for the first three years of operation were overly optimistic and have not been reached by any wide-bodied fleet to date. However, mechanical performance is consist-
1618

April 22, 1974
Order Paper Questions
ently improving and should achieve 97.5 per cent dispatch reliability in the second year of operation.
5.	(a) Nine L 1011s are now owned. In addition, two aircraft are leased for six months (May through October) each year for 15 years (1973-through 1987). (b) $17.65 million per aircraft, (c) Ten L 1011s were ordered, with one aircraft yet to be delivered.
6.	(a) Montreal-Toronto-Vancouver; Toronto-Calgary-Vancouver; Toronto-Edmonton-Vancouver; Toronto-Win-nipeg; Toronto-Halifax-Torbay (summer schedule); Toron-to-Tampa (winter schedule); Montreal-Toronto-Los Angeles; (b) Montreal-Halifax.


Mr. Howie: How many railway cars capable of transporting feed grains were available in Canada on February 1 in each year 1972, 1973 and 1974?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: CNR and CP Rail inventory of six-foot door boxcars, which are used in feed grain and other commodity service, was 54,399, 48,967 and 45,320 as of February 1 of years 1972, 1973 and 1974. Over the past three years a substantial amount of the six-foot door cars were converted to wider door sizes, to offer more flexible service with respect to other commodities. CNR and CP Rail inventory of covered hopper cars, which are capable of transporting feed grains and are assigned to carry fertilizer, potash and other commodities, was 12,329, 12,268 and 12,871 as of February 1 of years 1972, 1973 and 1974. The Canadian government owns 2,000 covered hopper cars which were purchased for grain services.


Mr. Howie: For each fiscal year ending March 31, 1971, 1972 and 1973 how many Government of Canada Annuities were sold and what was the total amount of money paid for them?


Robert Knight Andras: 
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	With respect to the amount of $325,000 in the estimates of the Department of Transport for the 1974-1975 fiscal year relating to the dredging of the St. Lawrence channel at Cap-aux-Oies, Quebec (a) what distance will be dredged (b) what is the present width and the depth of the channel (c) what will be the width and the depth of the channel once the work is completed?
2.	Were dredging operations carried out in this area of the St. Lawrence River during the 1973-1974 fiscal year and, if so (a) how much money was allocated for such works to March 31, 1974 (b) was the job carried out by the Department or by private contractor and, if by contractor, what was the name and address?
3.	What are the works planned for the future years requirements of $1,850,000 as listed at page 27-20 of the 1974-1975 estimates?


Jean Marchand: 1. No channel dredging is contemplated in the St. Lawrence River at Cap-aux-Oies, Quebec. The amount of $325,000 in the estimates of the Ministry of Transport for 1974-75 fiscal year relates to provision of navigation aids required to delineate a channel compatible in depth with the channel now being deepened upstream from St. Jean d'Orleans to Cap Gribane to provide access for deep draft vessels to the Port of Quebec.
2.	No dredging operations were carried out in the Cap-aux-Oies area during the 1973-74 fiscal year.
3.	The works planned for future years requirements of $1,850,000 in the 1974-75 estimates relate to provision of structures in the river for permanent navigation aids and for floating aids.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by the Department of Communications?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: In reply to the above question, the Department of Communications submits the following:
(Per	(Per
Region	72/73	Capita)	73/74	Capita)Atlantic	27,172	.0131	163,389	.0773Quebec	4,047,019	.6689	6,188,177	1.0176Ontario	12,197,026	1.5589	9,387,540	1.1825Central	271,937	.0763	1,169,712	.3259Pacific	206,673	.0898	65,610	.0276


Mr. Blouin: Have discussions or negotiations taken place between the government, specifically Parks Canada, and the Hudson's Bay Company for the purchase of the Mingan Islands, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence west of Havre St. Pierre and owned by said company?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No discussions or negotiations have taken place.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How much overtime pay was paid to employees of the Canadian Penitentiary Service in the years 1973, 1972 and 1968?
2.	How much was paid to members of the custodial staff?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1.
2.

1,013,000
640,000
*
4,213,855
3,131,960

8.700.000
5.220.000
Oral Questions


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to refer to several long unanswered questions which I have on the order paper dating back to last session. I refer to question No. 50 seeking information on trips made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) since October 30, 1972, at public expense, and the occasions on which such trips involved addressing or appearing at Liberal party functions. Second, I refer to questions Nos. 45, 87, 88 and 89 seeking information on the extensive and expensive renovations being conducted at the Prime Minister's official residence in Ottawa and his summer residence at Harrington Lake. Finally, I draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to question No. 407 of this session asking for information concerning reports that Mr. Martin O'Connell, principal secretary to the Prime Minister, has been spending government time in the constituency of Scarborough East showing pictures of the Prime Minister to school children.
May I ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can guarantee to the House that these questions I have mentioned which have long stood unanswered will be answered before the imminent collapse of the government takes place?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES- RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1. What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2- What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in respect of the postal difficulties. Last week the Postmaster General indicated that those on strike would have to return to work before the Post Office would be prepared to sit down with them to discuss a solution to the coders' problem. A special mediator has now been appointed. I ask the Prime Minister, under what authority was he appointed and who made the appointment?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is a special agent, Stanley Hartt, who is intervening in this, and I will ask the Postmaster General to reply to the question of the Leader of the Opposition.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: April 22, 1974
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Postmaster General what the terms of reference of Mr. Taylor, the special mediator, are? Has he any authority, for example, to discuss a solution to the coders' problems before there is a return to work? In other words, has he any authority to discuss a solution to the coders' problems other than within the terms laid down by the minister in the House last week and outside the House also?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to interfere with the work Mr. Taylor has undertaken. That is why I
am sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that any statement at this stage would likely make his work much more difficult.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, because it is of interest to the House and to the country I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether the position taken by the minister last week and stated quite firmly still stands or whether Mr. Taylor has authority to consider other methods of achieving a solution? After all, there is a national strike and the House needs some information concerning what the terms of reference are.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the present strike is illegal. It is national in part only, in that postal employees are still at work in several places throughout the country. I feel, however, that it is important for me to say that I am very happy that a third party is now working towards a solution to the conflict, and I am quite willing to trust him with the job.


Mr. Speaker:: There are three or four members seeking supplementaries. Perhaps we should try to complete the first round of questioning, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others.


FINANCE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, who undertook to let parliament know the date of the budget this week, whether he is prepared to let us know that date today?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to let the House know the date this week.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance what day this week he intends to announce the date of the budget?


John Napier Turner: How about tomorrow, Mr. Speaker?


POST OFFICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Postmaster General. In light of the fact that automation and technological change are the two most important matters with which the postal people are concerned, can he advise whether or not the mediator has strict instructions in this regard, and is the minister in a position to elaborate somewhat in this area?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said a while ago; at Mr. Finkelman's request, Mr. Taylor intervened as third party, and I should not like any statement of mine to the House to complicate his work.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: 
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as minister responsible to parliament for the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Can the minister say whether the government is giving consideration to proposing an amendment to the Public Service Staff Relations Act to include classification and reclassification within the terms of collective bargaining?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, Mr. Finkelman has brought forward two parts of his report on collective bargaining in the public service. It is expected that the final part of the report, which is a draft bill, will be tabled by the end of the month. At that time we intend to refer the whole question to a parliamentary committee, but before that time it is not the intention to bring in any amendments to the law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the government be prepared to indicate to Mr. Taylor what its intentions are in this regard so that this information might help in the settlement of the present dispute?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The government has already undertaken that it will listen to the views of the employees, the employers, and members of parliament before making its
April 22, 1974

policy position known on the aspects of the Finkelman report.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question. Can he tell the House what action he is contemplating against certain union leaders, as he suggested over the weekend, and what advice he is seeking from the Department of Justice? Will he also explain in his answer how that will bring about a settlement of the strike?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, we consulted our legal advisers about the procedures that could be followed. I think the matter is still under study and there is nothing else I could add for the moment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister indicate whether this is a civil action or another kind of action, and also tell the House how any kind of proceedings of this nature would bring about an amicable settlement so we can get the Post Office back to normal?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it would of course be in the best interest of all to get the employees back at work as soon as possible. I think the Canadian public is now convinced that this is an illegal strike and I hope that the majority of the employees will realize it is urgent that they return to work.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi rising on a supplementary question?


Mr. Grafftey:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member in a moment. I will see the hon. member for St. John's East now.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has he satisfied himself that the latest increase in the price of beef in Canada can be justified on the basis of the move of the government to restrict imports of DES-treated United States beef into Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am presently seeking further information about this question.
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: While the minister is seeking further information I should like to point out to the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


James Aloysius McGrath: -that on April 10 the Food Prices Review Board said that in their opinion the restrictions on DES-treated beef imported into Canada should have no bearing whatsoever on the retail price in Canada. May I ask the minister, on the basis of that statement by the Food Prices Review Board, what steps he is taking to examine the latest increases in the price of beef which appear to be gouging the consumer?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. The board as such has not yet pronounced itself on the subject. I understand it is meeting on April 25 and it is very likely that as a result of this meeting we will have more definite information to go on than the unsubstantiated press report on which my hon. friend may well be basing his question.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a further supplementary question based on the same press report in the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 10 that carried the story regarding the Food Prices Review Board. The same article reported that the Minister of Agriculture had said he could see no justification for any increase in the price of beef on the basis of restriction of DES-treated beef imported into Canada. Will the minister now consult with the Minister of Agriculture and then tell the House what the report of these findings is?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously in closer consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, than the hon. member has been in consultation with agricultural spokesmen within his party who support the DES ban.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister consulted with his cabinet colleagues in order to ascertain when relevant and necessary legislation will be introduced in the House to deal with both domestically and internationally induced inflation, and is such legislation prepared and ready now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking a very general question about the whole program which was proposed in the Speech from the Throne. Naturally, in the course of the session we will bring forth all of the matters proposed in the Speech from the Throne.


William Heward Grafftey: In view of the latest statistics which have come out since the Speech from the Throne, will the Prime Minister direct the House leader to suspend debate on the football bill and have such legislation introduced and debated immediately on the assumption, perhaps erroneous, that it is now prepared and ready?

April 22, 1974
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the member that the House can stop debate on the football bill at any time by allowing it to come to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe, following which I shall see the hon. member for Assiniboia.


REASON FOR DROP IN REAL LABOUR INCOME ON INDIVIDUAL BASIS IN 1973-SPLIT IN FUTURE INCREASES IN REAL NATIONAL INCOME
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. If we accept the minister's representation that real output in our economy rose by 7.1 per cent in 1973, can the minister explain or at least reconcile for the House why real labour income on an individual employee basis fell by 1.8 per cent in the year, in contrast to other sectors of the economy which saw their real income jump by as much as 27 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply to the hon. member's question, but it seems to me that a question asked in those terms is more debate. The hon. member asks the minister to reconcile one position with another. That is debate, essentially. Perhaps the minister could reply briefly, following which I will see the hon. member for Assiniboia.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is advancing statistical information which really has to be answered in debate. I would be prepared to do so at the appropriate time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a short supplementary of the Minister of Finance. Does the minister anticipate that any future increases in real national income will continue to be split 50 per cent to the corporate sector and 40 per cent to the eight million members of our Canadian labour force?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with that more fully at an appropriate time.
[DOT] * *


SASKATCHEWAN-FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO COMPENSATE FOR LOSSES-DECLARATION OF MOOSE JAW AS NATIONAL DISASTER AREA
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that areas of Saskatchewan, Moose Jaw in particular, are suffering from severe flooding and millions of dollars of damage have been caused up to this point, can the Prime Minister tell the House if there will be federal assistance available to meet some of the costly difficulties which have arisen for many citizens of that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have already communicated with the premiers of the provinces involved and reminded them that there is

a federal formula whereby assistance can be extended to the provinces provided they make such requests. In the meantime, of course, the federal government is assisting. The armed forces, I am told, are doing a splendid job. We have one minister on the spot, the Minister of National Defence, and I believe the Minister of Justice will be going there very shortly.


Mr. Bell:: He will start a legal argument.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are very concerned and intend to assist in every way that our policy permits.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously there are a number of supple-mentaries on this subject. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Moose Jaw, and then the hon. member for Assiniboia for his supplementary.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a specific request from the premier of the province of Saskatchewan to have the city of Moose Jaw declared a national disaster area, and can the Prime Minister give an assurance to those people in the city who lost millions of dollars in homes and property that the federal government will make arrangements to see that they are compensated for their loss?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated in reply to the previous question that there is very substantial federal assistance which is forthcoming in cases where provinces suffer great disasters. The formula is well known and I have reminded the provinces of its existence. It will be up to them to decide whether they want to apply for assistance and whether they qualify.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the formula now being used is somewhat new, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether within that formula there is assistance for communities such as Lums-den which to a certain point in time has been successful in preventing flooding but at great cost in terms of dyking, etc.? Can he tell the House whether assistance is available under this program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was, of course, referring to assistance which comes after the fact. There are other ways in which the federal government can assist in the building of preventive works. The Minister of the Environment has applied these policies in other areas and we will look into the particular case of Lumsden to see if it qualifies on future occasions.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Prime Minister answered my question. I wanted to know if there had been a specific request by the province to have the area declared a national disaster area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no memory of such a specific request. There have been, as I said in answer to the first question, reports exchanged back and forth between the government of Saskatchewan and the federal government involving various forms of federal action, but

I cannot say whether they have made a specific request that it be declared a national disaster area.


MANITOBA-FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO COMPENSATE FOR LOSSES
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact Manitoba is also involved in a flood situation even though we have two floodways which I doubt will serve the purpose, may I ask the Prime Minister if he has received a request from the province of Manitoba for help? Second, is there anything the federal government can do to urge the provinces to act and act more quickly to help the people involved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have an indication that, apart from the Canadian air force, various departments such as Indian Affairs, Health, Transport, the CNR and others-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That's you, Joe!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -have been involved and there has been communication between the provincial government and the federal government. In addition, I was kept very much up to date on this question by the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Thomas Miller Bell: Take your shovel with you, Joe!


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Could he say whether his budget is now ready and when he expects to present it to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question was asked earlier, but perhaps the minister could nonetheless reply to the hon. member for Champlain.


OFFER BY WHEAT BOARD TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL HOPPER CARS-PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH MINISTER AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Wheat Board. Was the offer by the Canadian Wheat Board to purchase 4,000 hopper cars with the farmers' money if certain conditions are fulfilled by the railways made after consultation with the minister himself?
Oral Questions


Hon. Otto E. Liang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board informed me of the intention of the commissioners to make this proposal before making it.


William Gordon Ritchie: Can the minister tell the House if the Wheat Board had consultations with the various farm organizations before making this offer?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would have to inquire as to the extent of their consultation.


SUGGESTED RELIEF OF PRODUCERS FROM ADDITIONAL
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: My question is also directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made recently by the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board to the effect that the board may be faced with charges for contractual default which will have to be borne by the producers, and the fact that vessel demurrage is costing producers millions of dollars because of the breakdown in the transportation system, can the minister inform the House what immediate steps the government is taking to relieve producers of this unforeseen cost which has come about through matters beyond the control of the producers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the events which occurred were the result of events largely beyond the control of everyone. What we have done is to take emergency action to attempt to ensure that the maximum amount of grain can be moved so that we can have more grain arrive at the terminals in the immediately forthcoming period to catch up on any backlog as soon as possible. This is the course of action that is required. We stand ready to take other steps as may be recommended by the operational committee set up for this emergency under the chairmanship of the Canadian Wheat Board to make sure that anything that can be done for any part of the industry is done in order to facilitate the movement of grain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Would the minister answer the precise question I put to him? Is he considering any measures to relieve the producers of the abnormal cost of demurrage and the abnormal cost caused by contractual default which are not the result of any action by the producers at all?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact measures I have referred to are those which will minimize any such loss and they are the ones which we are putting into place.

Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


POSSIBLE HIRING OF YOUNG INDIANS AS POLICEMEN ON RESERVATIONS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that differences of opinion have arisen between the government of Saskatchewan and the federal government about the hiring of young Indian boys to become policemen on reservations, can the minister report if any policy decision has been made in the last few weeks on this subject?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, several months ago I wrote to the attorney general, Mr. Romanow, in this connection and I made a proposal, but I have not yet heard from him.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I understand that the minister has just returned from a conference at the United Nations on energy and I should like to ask if he will make a report to the House on that important conference by way of a statement on motions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the conference continues so I do not think it would be appropriate to make a statement, but I would be very happy to table the statement I made on behalf of Canada.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. When may we expect the financial report of the Cape Breton Development Corporation to be tabled in the House?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. I was under the impression, as I advised the hon. member-I was obviously wrong since he is inquiring today-that it had been tabled. However, I will find out and let him know later this day.


Donald MacInnis: When the Cape Breton Development Corporation appears before

the committee for examination of its estimates, will the minister assure the House that a review of the legislation and the administration thereof will be included in the terms of reference?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge it is not within my capability to set the terms of reference for the committee. I would assume that the committee can examine any aspect of the operations of the corporation that it wishes.


EDUCATION
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. Have the minister or any of his colleagues compiled, and is he prepared to present to the House today or this week, an exact and accurate indication of the proportion of non-Canadians teaching and hiring today in Canadian universities and an accurate indication of the number of non-Canadians whose research projects are being funded by the National Research Council, the Canada Council or similar granting organizations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My impression is that the information requested by the hon. member, particularly in the second part of his question, would normally be supplied by way of a reply to a written question. If I am wrong in my interpretation and the hon. member thinks the matter should be discussed urgently, perhaps it could be considered at the time of adjournment.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question, put it in writing and also discuss it at ten o'clock. As a supplementary, may I ask whether the minister has prepared any legislation similar in intent to the football legislation to ensure the maintenance of Canadian content in Canadian universities, and when will that legislation be before us?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: No,
Mr. Speaker, and I am not sure it is necessary.


AIR CANADA
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Is it the policy of Air Canada indiscriminately to cancel flights to one part of Canada and redirect the planes to another region?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to which period the hon. member is referring. If it is what is going on now, I think Air
April 22, 1974

Canada has many good reasons to switch aircraft from one airport to another.


Jack Marshall: Due to the fact Air Canada officials have cancelled three fundamental, normal and regular flights to western Newfoundland and redirected them to other parts of Canada, will the minister take the necessary action to reinstate this fundamental service and ensure that Air Canada does not discriminate against one particular part of Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is no discrimination. However, there is no doubt that when an aircraft cannot land in St. John's or Gander it is very difficult to have a flight back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse will perhaps allow me first to recognize the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe who would like to ask a supplementary question.


Jack Marshall: Does the minister not know there are four airports in Newfoundland? He referred to St. John's and Gander. The western part of Newfoundland also requires service. It is that service Air Canada officials have taken off and redirected. These people deserve service as much as anyone else.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to give me some particulars, I can inquire and give him an answer.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the postal strike has become alarming, can the minister tell the House whether the Unemployment Insurance Commission will take special steps so that the beneficiaries of the Montmagny area will receive their cheques without delay and their weekly report cards will also reach the Commission in due time?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are doing our best, and have since the inception of this unlawful strike in the Post Office, to take emergency measures. I will certainly look into the particulars of the hon. member's community and see how it is working out. But we are taking special
Oral Questions
measures and are attempting to expedite both the reporting system and the delivery of cheques.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Will he inform the House whether it is still government policy, as orginally expressed by the government in 1965 and reaffirmed by the former Minister of Labour in 1971, that Part III of the Canada Labour Code dealing with hours, wages and vacations applies as government policy to employees in the public service?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Ottawa West will recognize that the Public Service is governed by the terms and conditions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, my recognition of that fact was implicit in the phraseology of the question. Despite the fact that the law does not apply, the former Minister of Labour established, and I can quote from Hansard if necessary, that as a matter of government policy Part III would apply to employees in the Public Service. I asked the President of the Treasury Board whether this was still government policy and I would still like an answer to that question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there has been no recent change in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Ottawa West for a second supplementary, following which I will see the hon. member for Vaudreuil.


Peter Reilly: That being the case, can the President of the Treasury Board explain to the House why there has been, according to the president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, in current negotiations between the institute and representatives of the Treasury Board, "a refusal to comply with the statement of government policy, specifically as it relates to Section 32 of the Canada Labour Code, dealing with the question of overtime compensation?"


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this particular allegation. I will be glad to inquire into it and furnish the hon. member with an answer.


INCOME TAX
Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the current delivery difficulties, is the minister giving any
1626

April 22, 1974
Oral Questions
consideration to extending the April 30 deadline on which Mr. Gray: I hope as soon as possible and certainly date some of us have to send him a cheque?	within a day or two.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is being kept under review. I can assure hon. members and the taxpayers that they will not be penalized as a result of any delays in the Post Office or, for that matter, as a result of prairie floods.


POST OFFICE
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that family allowance cheques are in post offices in British Columbia waiting to be processed, and in view of the fact housewives are threatening to picket the pickets and have already done so in Kamloops, will the Postmaster General make provision for the housewives to get their family allowance cheques, even if he has to allow them into the post offices to process their own mail?


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport. Can he now clarify the present status of the proposed airport head tax that was announced last January?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this air tax is still being discussed within the department.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Can the minister give some details as to the exact amount of the proposed tax, some of the particulars about its collection and some idea as to when it will commence?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if I were in a position to give all those details the matter would not be under discussion within the department; it would have been discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunately true that some family allowance cheques, particularly in British Columbia, and some in Alberta and in Quebec also, have not been delivered, although they have been in most cases. I can assure the hon. member that we have asked the Post Office employees from those regions to try to deliver themselves those cheques or to allow that an agreement be reached so that Canadian families do not suffer from the present dispute.

* [DOT]


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
* *

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact high interest rates, bank prime rates and the bank rate itself are very much a topic of consideration today, would the minister advise us whether any preparatory work is being done toward the revision of the Bank Act, including the extent of the plans at the present time, the composition of the committees which may be at work, and whether the government intends to publish a white paper prior to the revision of the Bank Act?


ALLEGATIONS THAT BEEF PRICES IN TORONTO WILL INCREASE THIS WEEK
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he is aware of allegations made over the weekend that beef prices in Toronto will increase by some 20 to 30 cents per pound this week? Has he investigated such allegations and can he assure the House they are incorrect?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I heard the same reports over the weekend. As I said to another hon. member, I am having these reports looked into.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Is the minister in a position today to indicate when he will be reporting to the House on the results of these investigations?


John Napier Turner: The Bank Act is up for renewal in 1977. I would anticipate I would be able to deposit a bill some time in late 1975 or 1976.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: In the meantime, both the Canadian Bankers' Association and ourselves are making an independent review.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think the minister is dangerously overconfident. I am sure he recognizes that, in order to get an appropriate Bank Act with the changes required for a modern banking system, the lead time is really much shorter than it appears when the act needs to be in place and operating by January 1, 1977.


John Napier Turner: I agree with what the hon. gentleman has said. I have taken steps to ensure there
April 22, 1974

Oral Questions
will be adequate public and parliamentary review so that	[English]
the revisions to the Bank Act will be in place by that time.	MANPOWER


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Last May the minister made a statement on motions indicating that his department was embarking on a program to encourage landed immigrants eligible to become Canadians to take out Canadian citizenship. He mentioned at that time there were approximately 800,000 in that category. Can the minister tell me whether the program ever got under way and how successful it has been in terms of new applications? How many remain at this time in the category referred to?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the program is well under way and it has been very successful. It would probably be more prudent of me to try to answer detailed questions when I appear before the committee. I should be delighted to do so, but the answer involves mobile units, storefront offices in Toronto and a variety of other moves.


Duncan M. Beattie: The minister did not say how many remain in that category, or whether he has any idea of the number. He did appear sympathetic last May to the idea of waiving the citizenship fee as far as old age pensioners are concerned. Has any decision been made in that regard?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
As it is known, the Quebec Department of Revenue requires at fixed dates that businessmen hand over their 8 per cent sales tax, as otherwise they are liable to a rather stiff penalty. Has the Postmaster General met or communicated with provincial government representatives to solve this problem and thus avoid penalties for Quebec businessmen?


NAMED FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM-PROVISION OF WORKERS FOR AGRICULTURAL HARVESTING
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, the substance of my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has already been discussed with him. Is the minister now in a position to announce the implementation of the named foreign worker program so vital to supplying workers for the agricultural harvest this season?


Robert Knight Andras: We are prepared to implement this program. We have indicated to certain farm groups where this ranks in the order of priorities. Certainly we wish to preserve jobs for Canadians available to fill them. We also wish to support formal exchange programs concerning offshore seasonal workers to which we are committed in the case of one or two countries. After these programs have been supported, and only then, would we look upon the named foreign worker program as being legitimate.


William David Knowles: Is the minister aware of the need for an early announcement concerning this program so that prospective employers and employees can make arrangements in time for the harvest season? Last year I think it was announced some time in March.


Robert Knight Andras: I have already announced a program to the farm groups which have come to see me that is very similar in terms to what I said a few minutes ago. It has been a standing arrangement. If the hon. member thinks there should be a formal press release I will look into that matter, too.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of recent statistics indicating that the clothing component of the consumer price index rose sharply in February of this year at a rate of 2.3 per cent in St. John's and 1.5 per cent in Vancouver, what steps does the minister intend to take to deal with this aspect of today's high cost of living in Canada?


John Napier Turner: I would prefer, at least at this stage, to take the hon. member's question as a representation.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I had no contact with officials of the provincial Department of Revenue, but I take note of the hon. member's suggestion so as to see what may be done.


POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO APPLY SANCTIONS AGAINST EMPLOYERS NOT GRANTING EMPLOYEES TIME OFF TO VOTE
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. It relates to the
27451-40!.

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football
requirement in the Canada Elections Act that three hours be granted to employees to enable them to vote. This provision has been demonstrated to be unenforceable. In these circumstances, does the minister plan to bring before the House shortly legislation which would apply sanctions against employers not complying with the law?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There have been a good number of representations with respect to the experience during the last election under this particular provision. The matter is under consideration and it is my expectation that amendments to the Canada Elections Act will be introduced. Certainly it is one of the prospective items that would be dealt with. I cannot assure the hon. member that legislation will be introduced shortly, however.


FINANCE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Every year the Canada Gazette publishes a list of uncollected or unaccepted bank accounts. This year the Royal Bank of Canada, the head offices of which are in Montreal, has eight pages of unknown people, names of creditors, and addresses. Has the minister considered the possibility that there is something unusual taking place or that the bank is not living up to normal expectations?


John Napier Turner: I think I had better take a look at that question, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: I consider this matter to be very serious, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether there is any unusual connection between these circumstances and the underworld.


John Napier Turner: I will consider that as a related part of the question. I assure the hon. member that I take it seriously and as soon as I look into the facts as he has presented them I shall be in touch with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-22, intituled Canadian Football Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. John Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in this debate I suppose it is necessary to point out to members on the other side of the House that it is they who introduced this measure, and until they provide more evidence than has been provided by government speakers so far, it is in the public interest to determine whether or not this legislation is really necessary, to determine whether the fears which have been expressed by people outside the House and by government spokesmen inside the House are well founded. Essentially, we have to ask ourselves whether or not the government has so far produced any evidence which supports the suggestion that its fears are grounded on fact, not just on fancy.
It is important for all hon. members, and especially for those people we represent in consituencies across Canada, to recognize that it is the duty of the government to propose legislation. That is a proper function of government. But it is also the duty of the government to indicate in debate the reasons for which legislation has been introduced and the evidence supporting those reasons. I think probably hon. members of this House on both sides and in all parties, would call themselves Canadian nationalists in what I think is the best sense of that word. However, I do not think, with respect, it is enough for the government to presume upon that very natural instinct on the part of members of parliament of Canada by asking them on that basis-after all we are all interested in the national wellbeing of our country-to pass this bill without examination because the government tells us this is essential to the maintenance of our national identity.
Some government members may say the government has not gone quite that far. I am glad that some of them feel that government has not as this would indicate that they have not completely lost their own faculty for looking critically at this legislation and recognizing that we are really not talking about a matter of maintaining Canadian national identity. If I thought that was the issue I would say so, but no doubt if it were the issue there would be some pretty strong evidence to support it. What we are being asked to believe is that the entry of a WFL team in the city of Toronto is going to break up the Canadian Football League. We are also being asked to believe that should that happen the playing of Canadian football in this country will cease. We are also being asked to take from those propositions the assumption that this somehow, or in some way, will seriously impair our sense of being Canadian.
There has been a lot of talk about the role of Canadian football in keeping this country together, perhaps not so much in the House as outside the House, but this has to be taken in perspective. I, for one, along with many of my school mates, grew up in a city where we played American football in highschool because the university team had to play in an American football league. The school board was asked whether teams playing football in highschool could switch to the American rules in order that the talent coming to the university from the highschools would be better prepared to play in that league in which the university played.
Many of us also played Canadian football in weekend leagues at the same time we were playing American foot-
April 22, 1974

ball in the highschool league. In those days we did not have a Vancouver team in the Canadian Football League. We also played other sports, including English rugby and soccer. We did not play much hockey as there was not very much ice in Vancouver in those days. We played a mix of sports, and I think most of us have grown into pretty strong Canadian nationalists. I do not believe for one minute that I was somehow robbed of my right or chance to be a Canadian because I did not have imposed upon me a solid dose of Canadian football and nothing else during my so-called formative years.
It is also interesting that when we talk about the role of sports in Canada it seems we have been speaking for a number of years now about the importance of the government's role in assisting amateur sports. Some figures have been bandied about in respect of the nearly quarter of a million young people playing football in this country, but how many adults play Canadian football in this country after they leave school? Canadian football in that sense is certainly not as national a game as some other sports. I think there is no question that probably far more adults play hockey for recreation long after they leave school, than play Canadian football. I have not the figures but perhaps some government speaker will provide them during this debate. I suggest that soccer is another game which many more adults play long after they leave school than play Canadian football. I suggest also that the same is true of English rugby. It is not surprising that this is true because football, as such, has not been a game which has been easily converted into an amateur type sport to be taken up on an informal basis after you get away from the rigorous discipline of school or juvenile leagues.
When we talk about the position of Canadian football in sports for Canadians I think it is important to put it into perspective. As I say, I played Canadian football. I think it is a good game and, in some respects, its rules are superior to American rules, despite the fact that they are very similar. I would like to see young Canadians play not only Canadian football but soccer, rugby and hockey as much as possible. That does not mean we should denigrate in any way other individual sports which perhaps in the long run are more useful to the individual as they can be played for many years and provide a great deal of pleasure, and good healthful recreation, to persons of middle and older years.
I should point out also that when we are talking about government assistance and getting more and more people to participate in Canadian sports, in my own province and in my own city field hockey is now a major amateur sport, amateur in the best sense of the word, as is English rugby and soccer. When we talk about the government making a move to assist in the growth of Canadian football, to which I have no objection, I just hope that these other sports which are very much a part of the sports fabric of this country will not be neglected.
I could not help but be struck by what I thought was the consummate commonsense of much of the speech of my colleague in the NDP, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). The first thing he said, and it is not with any vituperative attempt that I repeat with endorsement his remarks, the thing that everyone of us has to look at is that this is no time to be debating a bill like this. The hon.
Canadian Professional Football member for Greenwood said during the debate on Friday, and I quote from page 1592 of Hansard for that date as I think he has put this succinctly and responsibly:
First of all, I say we should not be discussing the issue of football at all at this time when we are faced with the problem of inflation, housing, energy, taxation and a host of other urgent economic and social problems.
I am in entire agreement with the hon. member in that regard, and I suspect there are many members of the government who are in as absolute agreement with those statements, but who have for their own particular reasons not yet expressed that view.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Would you agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)?


John Allen Fraser: I hear the hon. member speaking from the government side. He is attempting to ask a question, as he often does, but most of the time he does much more than ask a question; he proposes the answer. That is the part of my hon. friend's attitude in these debates that has brought him so much affection from this side.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I can stand up to ask the question, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) has the floor, and if he wants to allow the hon. member to ask a question he should signify his approval, at which time I will recognize the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I hold the hon. member in some considerable esteem and I would be pleased to hear his question.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: My question, Mr. Speaker, relates to a matter about which I am very concerned. I wish to ask the hon. member, in view of the fact that he was speaking of his views and those of others, whether he agrees with the statement made by his confrere, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), on Friday afternoon. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta is not here today but in any event I should like to ask whether the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) agrees with the speech that hon. member made in this House on Friday.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member has not indicated exactly with what he wants me to agree or disagree. I think the hon. member is asking whether I agree that this measure should be delayed as long as possible, no matter what it involves, and whether or not there should be a number of amendments moved by private members. The hon. member asked my opinion, and I may say I regret that any time at all is being taken up on this bill. I do not think it is good legislation.
But every hon. member who believes that this is not good legislation-and this could apply to some hon. members on the government side because some of them do not like this legislation-would like to actively do everything within reason to oppose it. My hon. friend has a frank answer and if he will let me continue I might be able to

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football persuade him that the reasons for my not agreeing with this legislation are sound. I would be delighted if my hon. friend would enter the debate at a later time.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not identify the hon. member who made the lively interjection, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). I did not feel that it was necessary to identify him because all regular readers of Hansard would know immediately of whom I was speaking. However, I apologize to the hon. member for not identifying him earlier. He is very identifiable, Mr. Speaker. He is always a delight and makes a great contribution to debates in this House.
As I was saying, I think one of the most significant contributions made to this debate was that of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). First of all, the hon. member said that we should not have to discuss the issue of football at this time and then enumerated other matters which are of greater importance to which I referred a few moments ago.
The hon. member for Greenwood, in a speech which I think every member of this House should read because it is pretty succinct and gets down to the nub of the issue, brought forward another reason for opposition to this bill, with which I agree, namely the question of the constitutionality of the bill. This is an aspect to which no speaker on the government side has directed his mind. As recorded at page 1593 of Hansard for Friday April 19, the hon. member for Greenwood said:
I would have thought that the regulation of sport generally was a matter for the provinces under property and civil rights and a matter of local and private nature.
On the same page he points out the second reason for worrying about the constitutionality of this:
Does it depend on peace, order or good government, the opening words of section 91? To me that is a nonsensical suggestion. That particular power relates to times of emergency. What emergency requires us to decide whether the Northmen play football in Toronto or do not play football in Toronto?
Of course, when one looks at the constitutionality of a bill one must consider the trade and commerce clause in the constitution. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Greenwood said this, again record on the same page:
It might be thought to be justified under the heading of trade and commerce. I know that is a complex subject and there are numerous cases, none of them clear. From my reading I have not been able to discover any case that justifies the suggestion that to allow someone to come across the border to play football, to play a musical instrument, albeit they are playing for money, is a matter of trade and commerce of such dimensions that it would justify legislation here on issues of trade and commerce.
The hon. member continues to cite a real problem which ought to jump out at all hon. members and when regard is taken of the penal provisions in this bill. He very correctly draws the attention of this House to this aspect of the bill. As recorded at page 1592 of Hansard, he asks this question:
Is it criminal law? Some clauses appear in the bill as if criminal law were included in this bill on purpose. This is an indication of the completely unconstitutional nature of the bill because criminal law certainly is a power that the federal government has but it cannot be used to justify interference in a field where the government has no right to be.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Greenwood has very properly brought a serious issue before this

House, one to which at least at this date the government has not addressed its mind in this debate.
There is another point, and I was pleased to see that the hon. member for Greenwood has alluded to it. It has been alluded to by other speakers here and by people generally outside the House. He said:
A basic right is involved here, that is the right of people to choose for themselves, unless there is some very good reason why they should not be allowed to and such reasons do not exist in the present case, what they want to watch on television or hear on radio. There is no reason why the consumer, that is the viewer who wants to view football directly or through any other means, should not have the widest possible choice, and if that choice involves some degree of American importation-and it does now and will continue to do so-so what? No nationalist rule compels us to say that we are going to shut our doors to seeing things, hearing them and enjoying them because they come from some other part of the world.
I think we can get too caught up on the fact that this bill relates to Canadian football and forget exactly what kind of precedent we are setting here. It is a little like saying that what Canada needs is to decide on what national game we want and have the government so state and disallow all other games. It is like saying that we will play this one game because it is Canadian. That would be preposterous.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare said this was analogous to what we have done under the Foreign Investment Review Act. I wonder if it is. Surely, all we did under the Foreign Investment Review Act was say that if someone wishes to have a business in Canada, no matter what kind it may be, we will ensure that there is sufficient Canadian control and Canadian ownership so that there is a greater probability of that business acting as a good corporate Canadian citizen. But we never said in that bill that there are some kinds of businesses one cannot have. This surely is what the bill in front of us is doing. It is saying there are some kinds of sport which one cannot have. If somebody plays American football in one city or in two or three, how does it become such a serious threat to our national way of life that it should be outlawed?
This is not the same as the situation in respect of banks or trust companies or the stopping of the sale of a company which controls the extraction of uranium. It is not something which goes to the heart of the national interest as has been propounded.
I think we must put Canadian football in some sort of perspective. As I have said, I have played the game of Canadian football and hope to watch it for the rest of my life but frankly I do not believe, unless there are better reasons than have been given so far, that we need this kind of legislation to protect Canadian football. If there are a quarter of a million young people playing this game right now, and if steps will be taken to increase that number to 500,000 or 600,000, as the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) said in Friday's debate, surely to goodness we will be producing so may competent football players, so much Canadian football will be played, that there would be no difficulty in a commercial league existing in this country in a good, healthy way.
Another question one should ask oneself is: given the amount of professional football that is being played south
April 22, 1974

of the border, can anyone seriously think that Canadian players will not be induced to play in the United States if they are good enough and if they are paid enough? It is very difficult to see exactly how the bill before us will stop that sort of thing from taking place. Surely, the way to combat that kind of thing is to have a heck of a good Canadian league, do everything you can to promote it in the schools, play the game well, play it constantly, and do one more thing which is very important, namely, have people play it after they leave school so that it becomes an integral part of our adult amateur sports scene. If it does not do that, then all of this is being done just to have a commercial league, and I for one am not prepared to see the government put all its effort into assisting the commercial side of a sport in which a large number of our people do not engage in their adult years.
The hon. member for Greenwood spoke about Canadian unity. I should like to quote him from Hansard of April 19, page 1592, where he is reported as having said the following:
My fourth point is that the pretence that this legislation is essential to defend Canadian culture and unity, to my mind at least, is completely phoney. Canadian culture and unity do not depend upon which of two types of football are played or watched in Canada,
I will not go quite as far as the hon. member did because I do not believe that the Minister of National Health and Welfare or, for that matter, some members of the government who have got themselves in this jam, did so on a phoney basis. It may be phoney in fact but I do not think that was their intent. But I am concerned about the suggestion that to even question this bill makes your own Canadian nationalism, Canadian identity or Canadian patriotism suspect. What is it that has suddenly put the Canadian national identity in peril? Is it the WFL team playing in Toronto? Somehow that seems rather absurd. We have gone through much peril since the time our ancestors, French, English and otherwise, arrived on this continent and hammered out a good country, contrary to many people who said it could not be done and contrary, as some people would put it, to the law of economics and the commonsense of geography. We have done that and we are in the House today debating because this country's sense of identity is not on the skids; this country's nationalism, our sense of who we are and what we are, is very much alive. I know that all hon. members, deep down in their hearts, realize that.
Throughout our history there have been those who have constantly told us that we would not make it, that we would slide into an abyss, that we would divide and separate among ourselves and that we would be gobbled up by the American colossus or we would be lost to materialism or some other undesirable event. I grew up reading learned essays by people who constantly repeated that we have no Canadian identity, that we have no national purpose, that somehow or other we do not know who we are or what we are. There are always some who, lacking anything else to write about, create issues. They transport them into the centre of academic discussions and, having invented an ailment that does not exist, they spend the rest of their careers prescribing methods to cure it. These people really do not do much harm, but I am sorry they do not apply their talents to real problems. Frankly, I think there is something peculiar in the Minis-
Canadian Professional Football ter of National Health and Welfare suddenly dropping his important responsibilities to join these Cassandras of Canadian social history.
The hon. member for York West suggested that it was in the public interest to pass this bill. That is what he appears to have said, and I refer to Hansard of last Friday at page 1585 where he is reported to have said:
You know, filibuster can be a very effective technique for the opposition in times of majority government. It can be used to keep the majority from legislating something that the opposition feels is not in the public interest.
I take it from that the hon. member for York West believes that this bill is in the public interest. Certainly, one can take from his comments that only if what the opposition is saying is in the public interest should there be any prolonged debate and the implication is that this bill is in the public interest and so there should not be any debate. The hon. member for York West made a very good speech but, like the Minister of National Health and Welfare, he did not advise us upon what evidence his fears and doubts were grounded. Where is the evidence that the Canadian Football League is really threatened?
The hon. member for York West said, as I have mentioned earlier in my speech, that in a few years there will be 500,000 to 600,000 young Canadians playing football. According to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, there will be help from his department, and with all this help and with that kind of growth one wonders why the CFL is in so much trouble. I say that even if I cannot see the reasons why the Canadian game is in trouble, it is incumbent upon the government to tell me why it is in trouble, not just to tell me, as the minister did, that it is a gut issue. He should tell me why we have to take this rather extraordinary step to save the CFL and apparently our sense of Canadian identity.
As I said earlier it is incumbent upon the government which proposed this bill to give me the evidence upon which they base their assertion that it will be the end of the Canadian Football League if we do not pass this bill. Surely, that is their theory, and that is what they think will happen if this team comes to Toronto, if this Mr. whatever-his-name-is who is supposed to be a millionaire and is apparently so important in the world of sports these days, brings this team to Toronto. I could not care a fig for the owner of this American team. I do not give a hoot whether or not they play. What I am concerned about is whether or not this is the way we should deal with it. People in Canada, and people in Toronto in particular, want to watch that team play and unless you can give me very good reasons why they should not, then I am afraid I have to say: let them play.
I am certainly no spokesman for the owners of that team. Frankly I am not much interested in professional football. I do not think that in terms of the actual state of health of most Canadians, professional football contributes very much to it. Whether it is the American stations we watch or whether we go to the stadium to watch the Canadian game, it is entertainment. I do not think it does very much for anyone's health except those who are playing-they are probably in pretty good shape.
If we take a look at what the hon. member for York West said we will see that there is no evidence that the

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football
things he fears will come about. But what is even more surprising is that there is no such evidence in what the minister said. There are assertions but not evidence, and there is a difference. There are fears, and the objectives of the bill are stated. They are to maintain Canadian football in Canada. But where is the evidence that the CFL will fall apart or that there will be one person less watching the Lions in Vancouver?


An hon. Member:: There is going to be a collapse.


John Allen Fraser: Give me the evidence on which you think there is going to be a collapse. I ask this of the hon. member through you, of course, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What about New York city?


John Allen Fraser: I ask my hon. friend to tell me why he thinks there will be a collapse. Let us look at the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and see if it contains any evidence. I ask all hon. members to read the speech carefully. Even if they have read it already, I ask them to look at it again. As recorded on page 1561 of Hansard of April 18, he said, "We all know that football in itself is not a life and death issue, or even a bread and butter issue". He said that it is a gut issue, an emotional issue. He took some time to get that argument out of his system.
On page 1562 he is reported as making the suggestion that the aims of this bill are similar to those of the Foreign Investment Review Act. I do not think the same arguments apply at all. Then, he continues at great length in his speech setting out reasons why we should believe that this has been government policy since 1972. I do not think it matters whether it has been government policy since 1972. In the absence of evidence to show why we should support the bill, I do not think the minister should have spent so much time on that aspect. But he felt it important to show that under the regime of the minister's predecessor, this was government policy, back in November, 1972.
On page 1563 of Hansard the minister is reported as suggesting that a strong CFL will help the growth of Canadian football. I do not quarrel with that. On the other hand, he presented no evidence to show that without this bill the CFL will not be strong. I am saying that Canadian football as developed over the years is not dying. Frankly, I do not understand the minister's position. If many young people play the game, if it has caught the imagination of young Canadians, if over a quarter of a million people are already playing the game, and half a million will be playing it, surely, there is room for a viable commercial league. We do not need to be afraid of the WFL, as the minister suggests. As recorded on page 1564, he suggests that his department will assist the growth of football. That is fine, so long as every other sport is given the same treatment.
The minister spent some time documenting how the Northmen were told about government policy. That was very interesting, of course, but does not seem relevant to the issue on which this debate is taking policy. He says they were told. I am glad. They should have been told of government policy; but that does not mean this bill is

right. This is the first time such government policy has been in front of the House. We are asked to support it. Surely, in the name of heaven, we should be shown the evidence upon which the request for our support of this measure is based.
The minister said, as I mentioned earlier, that this is a gut issue, an emotional issue. I am not one who has ever avoided problems or issues because they happen to be emotional. Some of the most important things in our lives are emotional. There is a time to appeal to emotion. If we lived lives in which we did not appeal to emotion, and if we acted in a way that did not recognize the emotional sides of our lives, we would live a dry, rigid, dusty existence, without humanity and compassion. So, I do not criticize the minister for saying this is an emotional issue, a gut issue. I think it is. I merely say that we should also apply reason.
After letting this emotional response work through our visceral innards, we should apply our minds to the real issue. Really, there are only two questions that need to be asked. First, is it certain that Canadian football is going to be extinguished if we let people play the American game in Toronto or anywhere else. Second, do we really believe that the only way to preserve Canadian football is to prohibit a game that happens to have its rules made outside of the geographic boundaries of this country. I ask all members to ask themselves these questions. Let them look at what the minister has said, and let them ask themselves this: Where is the evidence upon which you have built your fears and doubts.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief. I would like to say only a few words. Perhaps the hon. minister will be touched down! In any case, I am not converted to this C-22 balloon.
I want to take part in this debate to criticize the preamble of the bill. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a precedent as it is the first time we have been mixing politics and sports; as it has always been quite fair not to introduce nationalistic, political or other factors in sports, we have just broken with this process we are used to.
When we read the first paragraph of the preamble to this bill, we realize that one of the premises on which this government based the drafting of this bill is the following:
-football has an established tradition in Canada as witnessed by the Cup symbolizing football supremacy in Canada, which was donated by His Excellency, the late Governor General Earl Grey in 1909 for that purpose;
Mr. Speaker, they claim in a peremptory fashion that football is a tradition. Although this may be the case, they try to turn it into a basic principle, which I feel is a mistake, for what does the word "tradition" mean and how can football be considered a really true Canadian tradition? Perhaps it is because I come from the province of Quebec, but I do not feel I could agree with this point. In my opinion, the tradition they are talking about here is the following: football provides the Prime Minister with a once a year opportunity to "kick the ball" and show himself in public in more or less garish outfits. This is what struck me especially, and if it is a tradition, I wonder if we could not do without it.
April 22, 1974

Further on, it is stated that it may contribute to create bonds. I agree, but is it the only way? Is that famous kick-off by the Prime Minister necessary? Is it not simply a mistake to refer to bonds, Mr. Speaker? It happens from time to time, at most once every ten years, that the Montreal club can take part in the Grey Cup finals. Then our kind friends from the West or Ontario will sing: "Alouette, gentille alouette". That is all, but there are thousands other opportunities to do that. I wonder why it is stated that football is a typically Canadian tradition which can be used to establish bonds. I do not deny that it can become a means to that end, but there are thousands other more important and constructive ways than that one.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to be brief and explain why I do not consider it a tradition. The few remarks I have made sum up well what I think. It does not create many ties. In any event, the occasions on which Canadians demonstrate together do not depend, to my mind on football since, in the final analysis, at the Grey cup festival, or show, call it what you will, it often happens that the basis of the event, the notion of sport, is totally lost.
I find it strange that this controversial bill should be introduced and should perturb some of our principles, while nothing has ever been done in other fields that are far more important than this one. If there is a Canadian sport tradition, Mr. Speaker, there is only one sport that can properly be associated with Canadian tradition and be said to create ties between all Canadians, and that is hockey. No one has ever been too concerned about it, to the extent where American professionalism has managed to take over, to all practical intents, a sport which in fact is our true national sport.
Mr. Speaker, by opposing hockey to football I want to prove that the preamble of the bill is misleading. It is not true that football is a truly Canadian sport. Back home in the riding of Champlain, I never see lads practicing that sport.
On television that is of little interest to Quebecers or French Canadians in general. The proof of that is that there are nearly no professional football players who are Quebecers or French Canadians. I say so not to bring in nationalism but to contradict the minister. It is not true that it is a national sport nor that it interests all Canadians.
There is a sport whether it be in St. John's, Newfoundland, in Quebec City or elsewhere in the province of Quebec, in Ontario, in B.C. or even in the Northwest Territories in which all Canadians are interested. They know it nearly from the day they are born. That sport is hockey. Since I think this bill has no raison d'etre I could make a few suggestions. Since hockey is a truly national sport we could really help create genuine ties between Canadians by encouraging it. I would see examples to follow outside since the purpose of this bill is to preserve our little Canadian football very preciously. They do not want anybody to touch it. And I still wonder why.
Sport belongs to everyone. There are no reserved rights to any sport. Even if we were somewhat hurt in our pride when we lost the world amateur hockey championships
Canadian Professional Football the fact still remains that we are proud that our national sport was born and grew in Canada, became a world sport, particularly appreciated in Europe where it has been developed to such an extent that today in the amateur branch Europeans are better than we are.
Mr. Speaker, if we wanted to enhance somewhat the prestige of Canada, if we wanted to preserve something worthwhile we should consider developing our national sport at home a bit like the Russians do, Mr. Speaker. We could follow their example.
It would be marvelous to have in Canada a Canadian national league of high amateur or semi-professional calibre in which all provinces would be represented and we would have the best prospects in junior hockey in this country. We should encourage young players to play in that league, and it would be possible. Some kind of support, perhaps direct, should be given to amateur or semiprofessional hockey. A Canadian national league should be established that would compare favorably with those existing in the USSR and which would include players from all the Canadian provinces. That would be a concrete and useful action for there is a lack in that area. Everything has been tried to piece together our crumbling national prestige in the field of hockey, and it has not been successful as yet. The two major professional leagues and all other professional leagues in general are now American and come to get our Canadian players. That is the prevailing situation.
If some legislation should really be passed in favour of sport and if it is desired to implement the principles indicated in the preamble of Bill C-22, I think, Mr. Speaker, that it has been a failure. Hockey, and not football, should have been the object of this bill. There should be some motivation for Canadians to preserve their really national sport, in order to help not only hockey as such but all the youth of Canada to have the ambition one day of playing in a truly Canadian league made up of the best players. I think that this is possible, and if the minister wants suggestions, we will make them.
At any rate, I do not know what has bitten the minister for putting forward this legislation when the situation is growing more critical and that we are facing all kinds of problems. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the minister wants us to pass a legislation on Canadian football which, in my view, is not a national sport in Canada. You can check it by asking Quebecers if they are interested in it. I am sure they are just as much and perhaps even more interested in American football. Anyway, the preamble does not correspond at all with the hon. minister's intent.
As regards his primary purpose, I do not say it is wrong. I think that his intent was basically good, but the minister does not achieve the goal he is aiming at by putting forward a bill designed to safeguard Canadian football at all costs. And yet there is no evidence that, because professional teams that belong to other leagues are playing in Canada, Canadian football as we know it will disappear. Mr. Speaker, what can lead it to disappear-and this is about to happen in Montreal-is the fact that not enough people are watching it, as it happened last year. Football will not disappear as a result of any bill or the sudden arrival in Canada of American financiers who want to enable teams to play in Canada, but rather the fact that

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football
people are no longer interested in football. When no more spectators watch the games, bankruptcy is at the door. This is what can happen, with or without any bill, since we will never oblige spectators to watch games they are not interested in.
I think the hon. minister tried to give a fantastic kick, but he missed the target.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, within 60 seconds, I will sit down as a protest against the distortions of a decaying government bringing football legislation before us when the country is crippled with transportation and postal strikes, layoffs are multiplying, flood waters are rampaging in the west, housing prices are scandalously high and inflation is savaging the economy. People want to get Canada back together again. But all the Liberal government can offer is a football.
I favour protecting the community football clubs of western Canada. But, with Peter Newman, I say that "The prairies wouldn't vote Liberal if Pierre Trudeau became water boy for the Regina Roughriders". The Liberals are bankrupt. Give us important legislation-or give us an election!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, the contribution by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) may be the most significant that has yet been given in the context of this debate. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to begin my remarks in a debate like this by stating some basic propositions. These propositions may be seen as fundamental goals and objectives. It may be they will meet with general agreement in this House and across the country.
The first proposition is that the Canadian game of football is unique. It is different in form from its American counterpart. It is probably preferred by the majority of Canadians.
The second proposition is that the Canadian Football League, as the only professional league in which Canadian football is played, should be given an opportunity to continue as an entertainment and sporting vehicle for Canadian fans. It should also provide professional career opportunities for aspiring young Canadians.
The third proposition is that the Grey Cup Game, being about the closest thing Canada has to a national festival, should be preserved as a vehicle for bringing together Canadians from east and west in a sporting context.
I am sure the government will agree with those three propositions. Indeed, in the preamble to the bill before us, I detect a certain sympathy for them. Where I quarrel with the government is in the actual means it has employed to achieve the goals and objectives I have stated, and perhaps others which I have not stated.
I would first observe that the government appears to have been putting its head in the sand by refusing to recognize what is happening in professional sports in North America. I need only make a passing reference to pro hockey expansion, pro baseball expansion, pro basket-

ball expansion, pro lacrosse expansion and pro tennis expansion to indicate generally what I mean. Consumer demand for professional sports is increasing, precipitated largely by television coverage. Professional opportunities for good young players, regardless of their country of origin, have almost doubled in a very short period of time.
What is happening with football? We all remember the American Football League, a bunch of upstarts who could not hold a candle to the Canadian Football League, let alone the National Football League. Where is the AFL now? It has emerged as part of a giant major league operation in the country to the south of us.
Through evolution, we now see a third major league on its way up. The important thing for Canadians to remember is that the price is going up. It is just like oil. The supply of players for the most part has remained constant, but the demand has been increasing. What happens when demand increases and supply remains about the same? The price goes up. Regardless of what the government of Canada does, regardless of what this parliament does and regardless of what legislation is actually enacted as the law of this country, there is going to be a significant impact on Canadian professional football by economic events I have described in the North American context.
The salaries of players are going up regardless of whether we have legislation. The cost of equipment and stadia, is going up regardless of whether we have legislation. There is going to be more competition in television from the new U.S, leagues regardless of what happens to this bill. Most important, there is going to be some raiding of the Canadian Football League. There is going to be a significant amount of raiding if this bill goes through.
What about this purely Canadian league which the government is attempting to insulate from international competition? This bill does not say anything about salaries. There is nothing here about the cost of equipment and stad to our Canadian cities. There is nothing about television competition from the leagues to the south. Indeed, the government owned CBC is apparently going to continue to nurture Canadian interest in the American game by televising NFL games on Sunday. Most important, there is nothing in this bill about the raiding that will go on.
One of the significant practical implications of events to date leading up to the introduction of this bill has been the guarantees given by Canadian owners of the Toronto franchise in the World Football League. There have been guarantees related to equalization and no television competition, which I will describe and go into in a moment. I think the most important guarantee was with regard to raiding. I wish to quote from a document which was presented to all members of parliament and the government by the owners of the Northmen. I quote:
If we remain in Canada, we are prepared to urge upon our associates the adoption of the same policy against the signing of "futures".
That is a policy between the National Football League and the CFL.
Since our associates are anxious to have a team located in Toronto we would expect them to accept this suggestion. If the signing of "futures" is permitted to continue, we would expect that fully 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the present name players in the Canadian Football League will not be playing in the CFL next year.
April 22, 1974

If the Northmen are allowed to play in Toronto, there will be an attempt to avoid the signing of CFL players into that new league. That is a league promise, not a Northmen promise. It is not a Northmen threat of any sort, but a fact of life of the WFL. It is a statement and a guarantee that we have every indication they will be prepared to live up to.
I have given the international and the North American background to professional football and professional sports generally. Strangely enough, when this government is dealing with a matter such as inflation, it is only too willing to blame international factors as being the cause of the problem. They throw up their collective arms and say "We can do nothing about it; it is international in nature." However, when the matter comes down to a really important aspect such as the game of football, what happens to the international aspect of it? It is ignored. We have "head-in-the-sand", restrictive prohibitive legislation as the immediate solution. As virtually every speaker from this side of the House has said, the government has got its priorities mixed up.
To put it in a nutshell, my fear is that this legislation may do more harm to the Canadian game of football, the Canadian Football League and the Grey Cup than would be the case if the government had kept its nose out of the whole area of professional sport. Canadian football is a good game. I happen to like it. I watch a lot of it over television and I attend the occasional Argo game. In the words of Russ Jackson, we in Toronto have to look at some of the practical and economic facts of life. Russ Jackson, who is no stranger to Canadian football, said "Toronto is a strong enough football town to support both the Argonauts and the World Football League."
I hope the CFL will survive. I hope the Argos will survive and prosper within that league. Indeed, they may even win the Grey Cup some day. However, with a potential market of some two to three million people in this country, the Argos playing to a packed house and many thousands of Torontonians unable to get access to the stadium to watch that fabulous team, the addition of another professional team should not warrant the kind of negative concern that emanated from the government benches and which is manifested in the bill before us today.
If this bill passes, what will happen to the Northmen? What will the impact be on the CFL? We saw in this morning's paper that the Northmen may go to Seattle. I ask all hon. members from southern British Columbia what impact this will have on the Vancouver Lions. Television rights will be involved. Northmen games will be beamed right into Vancouver. I suggest that from time to time a busload of people will go to Seattle to watch the games.
Alternatively, the Northmen may go to Buffalo. What would happen in that case? I am told that some 5,000 Torontonians presently journey to Buffalo every Sunday to watch the Buffalo Bills. It would not be difficult for the owners of the Northmen to lay on extra buses, a few extra trainloads, and take thousands and thousands of Torontonians down to Buffalo, or for the CTV network or for
Canadian Professional Football the major radio stations in the Toronto area to continue to broadcast those games because of the factor of Canadian ownership of the team which enables it to qualify as having Canadian content. What will happen to the Argos in this context, particularly when there is this real possibility that the World Football League will be taking the most important Canadian players out of our country and into their league? I think we can see the direction in which the whole shooting match can go.
I have put the argument in favour of not passing legislation with the intent to preserve Canadian football and the Canadian Football League and the Grey Cup. But let us look at the other side of the question, since we ought to be realistic and honest in a debate such as this. What if the Canadian Football League is too weak to face the competition in the marketplace? Despite the recent pleas of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) in the debate on the competition bill for more competition in professional sport, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) insists on proceeding with this protectionist measure. Let us take a hard look at what he is protecting. On Thursday, the minister told us why he feels the CFL is more Canadian than apple pie. I quote:
The only completely Canadian-controlled professional sports league in Canada is the CFL.
Take a look at the Canadian Football League. Seventy-five per cent of all revenue generated by that league is paid into the hands of Americans. Virtually every quarterback, coach and general manager in the Canadian Football League is an American, or was an American when he entered the league. The star players, the ones the fans pay to see, are Americans for the most part. Finally, an increasing number of the Canadians who do make the big time, maybe one third, who are good enough to become well paid stars in the CFL, receive their early training at United States colleges, playing the American game. This is the league we are preserving as a Canadian league.
The truth is that the CFL cannot be effectively isolated from the North American marketplace. It never has been and the government may be hypocritical that it can be, now. If the government is really serious about Canadianiz-ing the CFL it would have carried its legislation much further. Let me suggests some additional clauses it might have inserted. It would have increased the minimum Canadian content in terms of players to 75 per cent. Or why not carry it right through to 100 per cent so that all the players would be Canadians-no imports at all would be allowed.
Allow me to suggest a further amendment. The minister and the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) have made noises about new Canadian teams entering the CFL-teams from London, Ontario, and Halifax-Dart-mouth were suggested. Why not tell the CFL to put its money where its mouth is? Why not make provision in this bill whereby any Canadian city of reasonable size which can provide a stadium with 20,000 seats would be entitled as of right to a CFL franchise? This would be the kind of quid pro quo the government should demand for giving to the CFL the protection it is giving the league in the bill before us.
But looking at the issue seriously, we all know that the CFL is really not all that Canadian. There are only limited

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football
opportunities open to aspiring young Canadian footballers to make it into the big time in the league. The big salaries will still go to the Americans, as they always have. The all-star positions, the Schenley awards, will still go to Americans, as has been the case for some 25 years. On the other hand, the Toronto entry into the World Football League would open up new opportunities for good Canadian players. It has already done so, Mr. Speaker, just as the World Hockey League has opened up an entirely new career vista for young Canadian hockey players.
In the context of the debate today, I think I should at least raise the spectre of possible retaliatory legislation on the part of the United States Congress. How many hundreds of good Canadian hockey players are making their professional living in the United States right now, and how many legislators in the Senate or Congress of the United States have been approached by constituents saying: Why cannot we enjoy a measure of protection to allow young American hockey players to make it into the big time? Why cannot we Americanize the game of hockey? After all, the Stanley Cup is becoming an American institution-it goes more often, now, to an American city than to a Canadian city, and this year is no exception. We have seen already the beginnings of a lobby in the United States Congress and Senate, a retaliatory lobby which restrictive legislation of the type now before us is bound to precipitate. I think this is bad. Many of our young hockey players have found a whole new world of possibilities opened up to them and I, for one, would not wish to support legislation which might have the effect of restricting that prospect for them.
What has the Minister of National Health and Welfare done beside issue an occasional threat and, of course, issue the bill we are now considering? Perhaps he could tell us at some time during the debate, if not in committee, what communication he has had with the executives of the National Football League, or with its president. After all, that is the league which is the big threat, the league which may well go into Montreal. In many respects, the Toronto Northmen and the WFL are being made scapegoats. Has he attempted to extract from the president of the NFL an undertaking not to come into Canada because doing so would run contrary to government policy? I have seen no evidence of any such communications, and I would be delighted to hear the minister or his parliamentary secretary outline to us the form and nature of any communications with the National Football League.
I would also ask the minister what communication has taken place with the Mayor of Montreal. The Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) might care to tell us what communication he has had with the Mayor of Montreal in connection with the new stadium which is to be financed at least in part through a scheme for the sale of coins and postage stamps which is federally sponsored. I understand that the minister did indeed talk with the Mayor of Montreal immediately before he delivered his speech in Regina on February 21, and that no undertaking was forthcoming from the Mayor at that time with regard to the use of the Olympic Stadium for the purposes of the National Football League. It may be the Mayor has since seen the light. It may be that he will be willing to compromise. I should like to see some evidence that an attempt has been made to communicate with the Mayor of Montreal. I know an

attempt has been made to communicate with the Mayor of Toronto and with the Metropolitan Chairman in that city.
But what we do know, on the minister's own admission, is that he did not communicate with the owners of the Toronto Northmen prior to his speech in Regina on February 21, notwithstanding the fact that the establishment of that WFL franchise in Toronto was announced six months earlier, in August 1973. The news appeared, of course, in all the daily newspapers and was broadcast throughout the country. It was well known not only to sports fans but, I suggest, to the government. My feeling is that if the minister were willing to communicate a little more readily he would need to legislate a little less. To his credit, the minister conducted two meetings with the owners of the Northmen in mid-March, after he had let the axe fall in Regina on February 21.
But despite all the guarantees the owners of the Northmen were willing to provide, a guarantee to make up the loss of equalization, a guarantee not to expand the league into any other city, a guarantee of no competing national television coverage, and a guarantee that there would be no raiding, the minister on April 10 brought forth a bill which is restrictive and retroactive, virtually cutting off all communication. In other words, the minister threw down the gauntlet and they are prepared to do battle. I find that course of behaviour a little strange, particularly in view of the comments made by the hon. member for York West who followed the minister as the only other government speaker who has had the nerve to enter this debate.
I quote from that hon. member for York West, who I am delighted to see in his place, who gave his version of how communications were operating between the government and those to be affected by this bill:
I remind my hon. friends opposite that the government was forced to legislate, after having made its policy eminently clear through the former minister of national health and welfare some 17 months ago, and reaffirmed by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) when he took over that portfolio. The government was forced into legislating, and now this bill is before the House.
I ask hon. members and all the people in the Toronto area, who forced the government? Where is this great body of opinion that required the government to come forward in response to this widespread demand? The government was forced by whom? I suggest that the hon. member for York West may have his political blinkers on because he said later in his speech:
I am confident that the overwhelming majority of Torontonians, given a chance to understand this issue, are going to support the government-
The hon. member for York West has put his neck on the line. Let him come out and speak in Toronto on this very issue.
Interestingly enough, a committee that has been formed in Toronto, to actively consider the issue which we are now debating in this House, and which will hold meetings in the City Hall in Toronto. It is the committee of Toronto fans for football. It has issued an invitation I believe to every member of the House of Commons to attend and participate in the debate, to come forward with views. There have been a number of people accept the invitation

to this meeting but, strangely enough, the only supporter of the bill who has yet to acknowledge the invitation and indicate he will attend has been the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Cafik). I am delighted, of course, that he will be there, but I had hoped we might have one member in support of the bill from Toronto.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


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


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of my assumption, and you may rule that I am wrong, from the comments of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), that he is suggesting some people in the House of Commons from the Toronto area are not responding to the invitation, and may thereby be avoiding the responsibility they have to their constituents in Toronto, I should like to say I did not receive any invitation to that particular meeting until this morning. I must say I have a previous commitment to attend an anniversary celebration for the State of Israel.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I think that is more of an explanation than a point of order.


Ronald George Atkey: I thank the hon. member for York West for that intervention. I intend to be at the same anniversary celebration, and I will catch the plane from there down to Toronto. I will be pleased to make airline reservations for the hon. member if he cares to attend with me.
If that is not enough of a negative impact for the people of Toronto, the Minister of National Health and Welfare had the audacity to perpetrate what really has been the greatest fraud on the people of Toronto that perhaps this House has ever seen. I refer to the minister's statement, which was not issued in this House but given to the press, as is the usual practise of this government, concerning television blackouts in the city of Toronto when the Argonaut games are sold out. I quote from that statement so it cannot be suggested that I am in any way misleading members:
One of the concerns articulated by the people of Toronto has been the inability to see their team play, because of games being sold out. While plans to expand the Toronto stadium may eventually contribute to alleviating this situation, any such expansion may take some time and still might not meet the demand for seats. Accordingly, an undertaking has been given by the owner of the Argonauts that on an experimental basis, and beginning this season, the television blackout would be lifted when it was established in advance that the game would be a sellout. The minister is fully aware that such a decision cannot be made by any individual CFL club without the approval of other clubs in the League, but the Commissioner of the CFL has undertaken to put such a proposition before the other CFL club members, and to encourage its acceptance.
That is the sop to the people of Toronto, and it might be a meaningful sop if the government could do what it has promised. What the minister forgot to tell the people of Toronto was that there had to be some other approvals which might not be forthcoming. It is one thing for him not to tell the public of Canada that there had to be approval of the Canadian National Exhibition, which actually owns the stadium and has certain contractual rights,
Canadian Professional Football of which the minister was well aware as he is a lawyer. He is well aware, too, that the Argonaut owner, just because of a unilateral representation from the federal government, cannot back out of his contracts. Indeed, I believe the commissioner of the CFL, or the Argonaut president, Lou Hayman, said on the weekend that in addition to the approval of other teams in the CFL, they will have to honour their contract with the CNE, because that contract gives the CNE the right to approval as well.
As if that were not enough, there is this other indication that the owners of the Argonauts have certain contractual obligations with the radio station. In this case it happens to be a rather substantial contractual obligation with Radio Station CFTR, which entered into the agreement before all this matter arose, with certainly a large amount of money involved, I think in the area of $125,000 the first year, for exclusive rights to broadcast Argonaut home games. If there is going to be no television blackout when the stadium is sold out, the radio rights are not going to be worth nearly as much as they would otherwise be, as people will watch the television as opposed to listening to the radio when they cannot go to see the game, and the owner of the Argonauts knew of this contractual right when he gave his undertaking to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I am not suggesting that the minister knew of this contractual right, but again I am putting before the House the fact that the minister is a lawyer and now has become somewhat of an expert, I hope, on how professional football teams operate. He should have realized he was holding out a false promise, which may in fact be the cruelest hoax on the people of Toronto, to suggest that TV blackouts will be lifted. The minister does not have any guarantee, and neither does Mr. Gaudaur, that there will be an agreement forthcoming from every CFL team, and indeed there may be some indication to the contrary. I am happy to sit back and watch what happens in that regard, but for the moment I think it is cruel, and it may be somewhat deceitful, for the government to hold out to the people of Toronto the hope that next fall they will see Argonaut home games on television.
Mention has already been made by two hon. members, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) about the problem of the constitutional validity of Bill C-22. This is a complex matter and perhaps one that is better argued in the courts than in the House of Commons. After all, though, the House of Commons is regarded by many as the highest court of the land and I think it would be inappropriate if not irresponsible if opposition members were to let a bill of this nature pass without commenting on the constitutional problem which appears so obvious on the face of the legislation. I refer specifically to this most restrictive clause of the bill, Clause 6 which reads:
Subject to this section, no person owning, operating or managing a football team within a foreign league shall require or permit that team to play football in Canada.
Subclause (2) reads:
Subject to this section, no person shall play football within Canada as a member of, or as a player on, a football team within a foreign league.

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football
Subclause (3) merely goes on to provide an exception in the case of exhibition games. How can the federal government justify the constitutional validity of this particular clause? Prior to the introduction of the bill we heard reference to trade and commerce powers, and we have also heard reference from time to time to the powers of the government in respect of immigration in the British North America Act. We have heard reference during this debate to the emergency power, the so-called peace, order and good government power of the federal parliament. Of course, the federal government has undisputed jurisdiction over criminal law and procedure under Section 127 of the British North America Act.
I think at the very least it should be incumbent on the minister, when he knew there were problems in respect of the constitutional validity of this bill, to explain the justification upon which the government was prepared to rely to support the validity of this bill. I say to the minister and to his parliamentary secretary that these may be the type of questions opposition members will want to put to the minister and his officials when the bill goes to the committee in the very near future. It will go to the committee very shortly provided it survives the vote, which is questionable. There is a question in my mind concerning how one can support legislation which focuses on the playing of a game within a province. This legislation does not relate to a commercial process or interprovincial or international boundaries. It contains a criminal prohibition relating to the playing of a game. The criminal sanction is invoked when the player in that game or the person who happens to be owner, manager or coach is with a team belonging to a foreign league. In other words, the crime is belonging to a foreign league and playing the game of football.
It has already been pointed out by several speakers that legislation relating to the playing of a game, traditionally at least, has fallen within the purview of the province. About the only legislation to my knowledge that has been supported as valid federal legislation related to the playing of games relates to pinball machines. This type of legislation, which is included in the Criminal Code, has been sustained on the ground that it has an element of immorality attached to it. In other words, there is something morally wrong or mischievous about playing this machine. Perhaps it leads to an unreasonable propensity to gamble. I challenge the government to prove what moral aspect exists in respect of playing football in Canada merely because the people involved happen to be part of a foreign league.
I predict what will happen is that this legislation will be in trouble when it goes before the courts. I say in all seriousness that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who apparently drafted this bill has the statutory obligation to check the provisions of this bill to determine whether or not they are constitutional in respect of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The phrase in the Canadian Bill of Rights to which I refer is "equality before the law". There are certain protections in respect of equality before the law and against discrimination on account of national origin which exist in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

In the first instance, I think the Minister of Justice has a statutory obligation to come before the House and say that he has checked the bill and that it is constitutional in that it complies with the Canadian Bill of Rights. As the government well knows, it is open to any person affected by legislation, including the government itself, to test the bill to determine its consistency or inconsistency with the Canadian Bill of Rights. I repeat that I think the government has the duty to come forward and say that the law officers have looked at this legislation and that in their opinion it is proper. This has not taken place.
In conclusion I wish to ask some questions about the implications of this bill in relation to things other than professional football. I might ask what are the implications of this legislation in respect of other sports. We have heard mention of hockey, baseball and soccer. I am sure the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) would be interested in this game and the implications of this bill related to professional soccer as played in Toronto. Let us consider other forms of entertainment and culture such as ballet, music, opera, theatre and painting. What are the implications of restrictive legislation of this sort in that area? I find this a little frightening. I hesitate to use the term but I think we must consider this. There has been a great national debate about football.
One of the most prominent figures in this debate now is the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Some sports columnists have suggested that this legislation is devious.
I think that is unfair. Some suggest it has been introduced for partisan political purposes. I think that is unfair. Indeed, I think if the Minister of National Health and Welfare thought about it and considered the political winds of change, he would realize that this bill may not bring any political advantage. I think the minister was serious in bringing forward the bill. If I can be charitable,
I believe he was ill advised perhaps in doing so. That is the way I would characterize his attempt to enact this legislation, and apparently it is too late at least in his opinion to withdraw this bill.
Today during the question period the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said we should end this debate and move on to other things. He agreed with the comments of questioners from this side of the House and said that the simplest way to move on to other things would be for those on this side of the House to stop talking. I think I can speak for most of us on this side of the House when I say that we will end this debate immediately if the government will do the one thing it should do under the circumstances, and that is to withdraw the bill.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-Last Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I say I regret that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has seen fit to involve himself in professional sports. We are all aware of the fact that hon. members of this House welcome the idea of the physical fitness and amateur sports assistance made available by the government. I think it is more fact than rumour that the NHL headquarters will be moving out of Montreal when Mr. Campbell completes his term of office. There goes the national aspect of the Canadian game! Will the minister be prepared to introduce legislation to compel the National Hockey League-we have only three teams left in this country-to keep its headquarters in this country where it
April 22, 1974

belongs. We might look at the preamble to the bill. It begins this way:
Whereas football has an established tradition in Canada as witnessed by the Cup symbolizing football supremacy in Canada, which was donated by His Excellency, the late Governor General Earl Grey in 1909 for that purpose;
That is absolutely false and incorrect. I am under the impression that probably the minister received some pretty bad advice from Senator Keith Davey whose tenure of office as Commissioner of the football league did not see him through one season. I think the failure of Senator Davey has a lot to do with the minister being poorly advised.
Now we come to the definitions in the bill and we find the following one:
"football" means Canadian football and American football but does not include soccer or rugby;
How has the minister gone so wrong? In the first place, let me point out that Governor General Earl Grey donated the Grey Cup for rugby football, not professional football. In those days rugby football was played as an amateur sport. On what has the minister based himself? The minister referred to all the things that have been said in favour of the action proposed by the government in this bill. He quoted various authorities. He quoted the players' associations, and he came up with the name of George Reed who is an American. I want it completely understood here that I am not criticizing George Reed as a football player. His contribution to the game in Canada has been outstanding. No man has ever established the records that he has, nor do I think anyone will for a long time approach the record that this man has established. He has meant much to the game in Canada and to the team for which he plays. George Reed stands alone in this particular sport. He has been symbolic of the best there is. However, when the minister, speaking about protecting the Canadian Football League, quotes an American player, I think he is straying far from the intention of his legislation.
Now let us speak for a minute about the game itself and the importance of competition. I think, personally, that the establishment of more teams in Canada is good. It will certainly provide greater opportunities for a greater number of Canadians to participate in the sport in view of the fact that a certain number of them will have to fill up the rosters. It is a possibility that the opening up of opportunities and the establishment of more teams will cause the deterioration of the game. But that does not mean a thing. It is competition that makes the game, no matter what type of game is being played.
I can say without fear of contradiction that the worst game of hockey I ever watched was between the Chicago Black Hawks and the Toronto Maple Leafs. I watched the best players and at the same time I watched the worst game. It is the competition that counts. Horseracing fans in this country will know that a race run in two-eighteen or two-twenty can be just as exciting as one run in two flat because of the competition. It is what is happening at the end of the game which makes the game itself come alive-it is competition.
Canadian Professional Football
I am also somewhat disturbed about the geography brought in here. First we talk about Vancouver, and then we come all the way down to Montreal. I always understood that the country stretched from Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: The bill refers to the national aspects of the game. There is nobody more fond of watching American football than I am. Even if I have to be fed my supper watching television-we are not too sophisticated down in Nova Scotia and we still have supper in the evening-I will not miss any of the game. If necessary, I will stay up after midnight watching the games from the west coast which we do not get until after midnight in the east. I follow the game; I like the game; I like to watch Sunday afternoon games. I will not support anything here that will deprive me or anyone else in eastern Canada of the opportunity of watching American football games on Sunday afternoons. While in Ottawa I like nothing better than to watch American college teams perform. I think that they perform more excitingly than any of the professional leagues. They may lack a good deal in finesse but they make up for it in desperation, and to me that makes for a better game.
When we talk about the geography of the country and the national aspect of this game we overlook the fact that eastern Canada does not stop in Montreal and that western Canada does not stop in Vancouver. Reference is made to the financial aspect and to what the league is doing for the teams in the amateur ranks in Canada. Let me point out that what they are doing is purely in their own interests. If there is any subsidy given by professional sports in this country to give an opportunity to the younger men in the sport, it is done with the sole purpose of pulling these young men into the professional league and the professional team. It is self-serving and the assistance is not provided under physical fitness and amateur sports legislation which is something worthwhile. Believe me, professional sport is a business and any financial assistance they give to any minor league team is given with one purpose in mind, to strengthen their own position.
Earlier I spoke about the donation of the Grey Cup by the late Governor General Earl Grey in 1909 and the fact that the definition in the bill states that football is Canadian football and American football, but does not include soccer or rugby. This is absolutely wrong. I still say, and if I were still involved I would make the claim, that any rugby team in Canada that can prove itself superior can lay claim to the Grey Cup which was originally intended as a rugby award. Somehow or other Canadian football got past the Rules and the Grey Cup was awarded to professionals playing Canadian football, but it was never donated for any such purpose in the first place.
Let me tell you something about the history of the game. Originally the first game was rugby. When we talk about the international game we know that rugby football has a far greater appeal on the world scene than either the Canadian or American football games. I think we would all admit that probably soccer is the greatest of the international games, the game which is played in most coun-

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football
tries. Perhaps now that the European countries have taken up hockey, we could consider hockey to be close to the top also. I would say that basketball also has gone up a long way in popularity. It was the Canadians who invented basketball and the Americans took it over.
However, speaking of international games, rugby must be up at the top in popularity. The French team is one of the leading teams in Europe. We have all heard of the New Zealand All Blacks-a famous name for years. They are playing Wales, Scotland and Ireland. They have played all over Europe, in Canada and the United States as well. A few moments ago someone mentioned that soccer is becoming professionalized. Indeed, Toronto has a soccer team in the professional league. Why is there so much emphasis on the Canadian-American football game? What I will say now may be a denial of what I originally said. I enjoy watching the game, but I have no choice. However, I will try to give members of the House an opportunity to see a game later this week. I have arranged to have a film shown here and I invite everybody here to look at that film. It will show a game played between the New Zealand All Blacks and the Barbarians. You will see 80 minutes of sustained action. This is the game for which the Grey Cup was originally intended.
I say that with proper promotion amateur football can take over in this country. You will be watching a football spectacle that will make your Grey Cup games look like child's play in comparison. Why do I say that? Because in this game a player goes on the field for 80 minutes. What do our professionals do? Probably they play for 15, 17 or 18 minutes, and between the shuffle that goes on between the bench, the field and the delays, the game lasts three hours. I intend to watch 60 minutes of football and it takes me three hours to do it. With amateur sports you get 80 minutes of football all wrapped up in an hour and a half or an hour and 40 minutes. This is sustained action. You will see the pro coming off the bench; he will run down the field 75 yards, either complete the run or miss a pass and the coach will give him a breather. This is professional sport. There is sustained action for 80 minutes; there is continuous football, such as the Grey Cup was originally intended for.
As we delve into the history of the game, what do we find? The game which was played by the American ivy league by Rutgers, Brown, Princeton, Harvard, Yale and other similar colleges, is based on English football. We call it English football in my area; actually we should refer to it as rugby football. How did the American game develop to its present form? According to history, and I am talking off the top of my head but have read the facts, Harvard built an enormous stadium, only to find that not enough room was left for the playing surface. They had to narrow the field, therefore, cut down the length and begin innovating with regards to the rules. That is how we developed the forward pass, which is supposed to make the game so glamorous. I sound as if I hate the game, but I do not. I like to watch sports events and will continue to watch in future. I hope I will not be denied the opportunity by the ridiculous measure the minister has brought before the House.

The game as we know it developed from rugby football, and began because some people decided to reduce the dimensions of the playing field and make innovations in the rules. The minister has stepped into the area of professional sport. What will this do for the development of football in Canada? I don't know. I think he is playing a dangerous game. I have learned that the Senate of the United States is considering measures of retaliation whereby they will restrict the number of Canadian hockey players who may play on American NHL teams. Perhaps this will turn some players loose. They could come back to Canada and be absorbed in an NHL team, go to Winnipeg, or possibly Ottawa. We all know what happened to the last professional hockey team that tried to establish itself in Ottawa. I think we are playing a dangerous game when we tamper with professional sports. We are becoming involved with business. The minister may be restricting the entry of Americans to our game, but he is running the risk of having our hockey players excluded from the United States.
That brings me to another point. Look at what happened to the Canadian intercollegiate basketball finalists not long ago. What went on was shameful. There is a small university in Nova Scotia which has a tremendous record in intercollegiate sports. It was finalist two years in a row in intercollegiate hockey, winner of the 1973 Canadian football championship and won last year the Canadian basketball championship. Again this year, the team was a finalist in the Canadian basketball championship.
When that team went to play, what happened? There were three American players in the line-up and what anthem did the band play? Did it play O Canada? Not on your life. It was decided, because there were three Americans on the team, that the band would play the Star Spangled Banner. Is this the way to treat a maritime university because there are three American players on the team; is that any reason to play the American national anthem rather than the Canadian national anthem? Is this the kind of treatment we can expect for people east of Montreal.
The preamble to the bill is based on facts which are not correct. Look at the history of the game. The Grey Cup trophy was never intended to be a trophy for professional sports. It was intended for the best team playing rugby football, and rugby football developed into American style football through an accident. If you want to see real football, you should see a film which is available from Toronto. You will see, 80 minutes of sustained action. At the least you will see 45 minutes of action. You will see football as it should be played. You will not see players spending 20 or 25 minutes in a huddle, or using up time in scrimmages. The game is fast moving. Let me tell you, if professional athletes had to perform in the way these players perform for 80 minutes, they would be exhausted. You will be most impressed with these players. I urge members to see the film.
Returning to my original theme, what will the minister do if the Americans decide to retaliate and exclude NHL players from participating with American teams, or limit the number of Canadian hockey players who may play with an American team. As I said, there is a bill to that effect coming before the American Senate. It requires a
April 22, 1974

certain percentage of players on American teams to be Americans. If that bill is enacted into law, many would-be Canadian hockey players will be denied opportunities because of the geographic area from which they come. What about the subsidy, in a manner of speaking, which is to be provided by the professional football league in Canada. Will it apply to Cape Breton, to Nova Scotia, to P.E.I., to Newfoundland and to other areas?
I have not listened to the debate up to now. However, as soon as I looked at the first paragraph of the preamble to the bill, I knew the minister was wrong. In addition, the definition section of the bill says, football means Canadian football and American football but does not include soccer or rugby. That is entirely wrong and flies in the face of why Governor General Grey in 1909 presented the trophy. That section and that preamble constitute an absolute denial of the original reason for presenting the Grey Cup.
In making these remarks I do not intend to involve myself in the financial aspects or the TV coverage aspect of Canadian or American football. Again, I say on my own behalf and on behalf of lots of people in the maritime provinces that, if this bill becomes law, we may be denied the opportunity to watch games, as we have done in the past.
The physical fitness and amateur sport legislation is well worth supporting. I think it is supported by members on both sides of the House. I have, at times, criticized what is going on within the responsible department; I have also criticized groups who have come forward for financial assistance under the act. For instance, I do not consider chess to be a game which deserves financial support from the physical fitness and amateur sport branch of the department. How much physical fitness are you developing when you sit down to play a game of chess? I think it should be directed into those sports which are strictly amateur in nature. Later, there is nothing to prevent an amateur from turning professional, of course. The preamble to this bill is absolutely wrong, absolutely false and inaccurate. You can apply any adjective you wish, but it does not belong in the legislation nor does discrimination, as I outlined, in the definition.
I hope the minister will stop heeding the bad advice he is getting, which I assume comes from the short-lived commissioner, Senator Davey. I could be wrong but there is no doubt in my mind that this matter has been brought before parliament strictly on a political basis. It is strictly political. What they hope to gain I do not know, but I do not see how restricting competition can do any good.
If Americans begin to retaliate there will not be much left and in the end we will probably get back to what was originally intended-that is, playing a game of football for 80 minutes of sustained play rather than 17 or 18 minutes per game for the professionals who have to stop for a breather after a 70 yard dash. In rugby union football you run 75 yards and get knocked on your butt. Then, you have to pick yourself up and run another 75 yards. There is none of this pampering.
This is a dangerous area in which the minister has moved. If he is going to be consistent in his approach to
Point of Order
professional sports, I think he had better amend his bill to provide that the Montreal Expos baseball team should have a percentage of Canadian players. If the legislation applies to professional football, why not apply it to baseball and make the Expos use a percentage of Canadian players in their lineups. What would that do to professional baseball in the Montreal area? We all know it would absolutely chase it out of Montreal.
I do not think the minister has been properly advised on bringing in this bill. In fact, he has been poorly advised on the restrictive type of legislation which will only be detrimental to other professional sports throughout the country.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-External Affairs-Charge by United Nations Secretary General that Canada engaged in brain drain of developing countries-government position; the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)-Agriculture-Dairy policy, 1974-75-Assurance that producers will continue to operate; the hon. member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie)-Government Administration-Request for Royal Commission into increasing cost and effect in feeding inflation.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have run into some difficulty in connection with private members' hour. The arrangements made on Friday are not possible of consummation. Because of the strike in the air industry, the member who was to move the motion has been unable to attend. There have been consultations with the parties, and I think there would be agreement to move to public bill No. 120, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nipissing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Before going on, I was to recognize the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) before five o'clock.


Mr. Jelinek:: Mr. Speaker, seeing that it is just a couple of minutes before five o'clock, I wonder if I could call it five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: That means there will be an hour and five minutes for private members' hour. Is the House agreed?

April 22, 1974
Identification of Criminals Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lefebvre:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, we can call it six o'clock at three minutes to six. It will come to the same thing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS-PUBLIC BILLS   IDENTIFICATION OF CRIMINALS ACT AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT PUBLICATION AND DESTROY RESULTS OF IDENTIFICATION PROCESS UPON ACQUITTAL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. tJ.-J. Blais (Nipissing) moved: That Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Identification of Criminals Act, be read for the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to submit my first bill since I have been elected to this Chamber. I have many times had the opportunity to adopt a negative attitude towards bill submitted by other colleagues who are, in fact, here in the House. I was very sorry to see their bills dropped at the bottom of the list, because we did not have enough time to discuss them. I hope that this tradition will not be followed this time and that we will have the opportunity to see the bill I am now submitting to the House debated in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that, of course, the essential amendments I am now proposing to the bill regarding the identification of criminals be adopted, since I think they are vital. So that we may discuss this bill in committee, my participation will be very short, but clear and accurate.
The bill that I suggest be amended concerns the Identification of Criminals Act. This act allows the police, investigators, Crown officers, even before an individual is convicted, to prepare and compile a file for identification purposes in relation with this individual. However, this may present some difficulty. As everyone knows, there is a fundamental principle in our criminal justice system according to which every accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.
On various occasions, we have attempted to change this principle a little, but without success. However, I believe that the Identification of Criminals Act is in direct opposition to this principle which is part of the English common law and which we have always tried to sanctify, indeed, to perpetuate.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]
One has to read section one very carefully. It speaks of the identification of criminals. Therefore, it speaks of the identification of people who, under our law are deemed to be criminals. Section 2 reads:
Any person in lawful custody, charged with, or under conviction of an indictable offence, or who has been apprehended under the Extradition Act or the Fugitive Offenders Act, may be subjected, by or under the direction of those in whose custody he is, to the measurements, processes and operations practised under the system for the identification of criminals commonly known as the Bertillon Signaletic System, or to any measurements, processes or operations sanctioned by the Governor in Council having the like object in view.
I stress the fact that those people who are subjected to this system of identification are those in lawful custody or charged under a criminal statute. Under this bill, there is no necessity that the person be convicted, be brought before a tribunal, be arraigned or indicted. There is simply the need for that person to be lawfully arrested or charged. Whether that charge is proceeded with is of absolutely no merit.
The question is whether he has been charged and whether he is under lawful arrest. If those two criteria are met, the whole procedure of identification falls into place. That may not be absolutely detrimental to our whole system of criminal justice, but I draw Your Honour's attention to Section 3 which reads:
No one having the custody of any such person, and no one acting in his aid or under his direction, and no one concerned in such publication, incurs any liability, civil or criminal, for anything lawfully done under this Act.
Sections 2 and 3 permit the complete publication of any information obtained through this identification procedure. It permits the dissemination of that information at any time without any limitation, notwithstanding the fact that that particular person has never been produced before any court in this country and has never been convicted of any offence. Therein lies the big fault of the statute as it now exists, namely that individuals are subjected to identification although there has only been a charge levelled against them and that information is subject to publication.
This can be done in any way the constabulary sees fit. There is no remedy offered under civil or criminal justice. Although Section 3 limits this publication only to those engaged in the execution or administration of the law, that particular group can be very wide indeed. That publication could be very detrimental. In the course of its publication, it could well be that the information is obtained by the press, news media or other citizens who may well want to make use of it even before the individual appears before a tribunal or is convicted. I draw Your Honour's attention to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, clause 2 reads as follows:
2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or feeedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to ...
April 22, 1974
[Stage Direction]
(/) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause;
Mr. Speaker, I can see no way that this bill as it reads now can comply with the Canadian Bill of Rights.
This, Mr. Speaker, makes it a necessity to amend the bill, and I think the amendment I suggested is quite reasonable because it does not prevent identification but only the publication of information gathered by police officers. Its object is to force the court to destroy evidence after the case is heard and the individual is discharged.
[Stage Direction]
It is essential that this bill be passed because it orders the destruction of cards and other results of the identification process wherever anyone has been acquitted of the offence with which he was charged or discharged under the recent amendments to the Criminal Code.
In conclusion, perhaps in anticipation of an argument which might be presented, I simply want to state my rejection of that argument. It has been indicated to me that this information serves to identify criminals who, although they have not been convicted before a court of the country, are engaged in criminal activity. I suggest that the exception must be very rare. It does not outweigh the right of any Canadian citizen to be deemed innocent until proven guilty and the right of a Canadian citizen to not have published throughout the country an indication that he is under criminal charge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your attention.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the calling of Bill C-220 this afternoon gives me the opportunity to practice the fine art of turning the other cheek. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) is a frequent participant in debates on private members' bills and resolutions. I think I can say that when one of mine is before the House, he speaks with respect about it. He says what a fine person I am and so forth, but he always finds something wrong with my bill or resolution. I want to say to him at the outset, in terms that I want to make as unqualified as I can, that I see nothing wrong with this bill.
I recognize the arguments that will be put forward. There will be those who in the name of assisting the police and so on will say that the right to publish mug shots and fingerprints should be retained without restriction. However, I think the essential point made in this bill, and in the speech of the hon. member for Nipissing, is valid, namely that until a person is proven guilty, he is innocent and that until he is charged and brought before a court, he should not be treated as though he were a criminal. I believe, therefore, that the hon. member for Nipissing has done a service in drafting and presenting this bill. Its purpose is clear. It contends that mug shots, fingerprints and other means of identification used with respect to persons who are in trouble with the law should not be published before that person is brought before a court; and if such a person is found to be not guilty, those various forms of identification should be destroyed.
Identification of Criminals Act
I listened with a good deal of interest to the wistfulness of the hon. member's plea that the House should not waste a full hour on this bill, but should deal with it quickly and send it to committee because it ought to be passed. I guess he was quoting me, because I have been saying that for years. I include this measure among the number of proposals by private members which come into this category as deserving of approval-deserving to be passed and enacted without undue delay. I hope it will receive second reading this afternoon so it can be sent to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of showing a negative attitude to this bill. On the contrary, I see many good aspects in the bill. However, I believe it may be somewhat excessive.
Amendments should indeed be made to the Identification of Criminals Act, but the destruction of all criminal identification would be in my opinion a serious mistake, especially in the case of acquittals, because there is no proof that where persons are acquitted of an offence, they do no commit other offences later on.
The acquitted person is in fact often guilty. There is no doubt about it in anybody's mind. But because of circumstances surrounding the crime, because of the reasonable doubt benefitting the accused, and often through some jurors' incompetence, the accused is acquitted. But it is not proven that he never does commit other offences later on.
I remember a famous hearing in Quebec City, a few years ago. A certain individual had been accused of kidnap and murder, and was later on acquitted. I will not discuss how the jury came to such a decision but one thing I am sure of is that to destroy signaletic cards or identification papers concerning that individual would be a very serious mistake. Also, to destroy certain identification papers concerning, let us say certain present activists taking advantage of labour conflicts in Quebec for instance, would also be at this time a serious mistake.
However, in the case of juvenile delinquents who are brought before the social welfare courts, one could say perhaps that the judge shows a little more flexibility and since fingerprints and mugshots are not used in that case, I believe it is a good thing. As regards people accused for instance of having used drugs for non-medical purposes, they have the benefit of getting a suspended sentence. There again, I suggest identification papers for fingerprints should not be used. But I am thinking of the dope pushers who are declared not guilty and in such cases, I do not believe the fingerprints should be destroyed.
As a matter of fact, when we visited penitentiaries this year, we were told that 85 per cent of the prisoners were repeaters. Therefore, one could perhaps wonder how many of them were acquitted the first time. Again, I say one cannot be sure that an acquitted person will not commit a second or even a third offence. I would have suggestions to make about that. Again, there is much to be said for Bill 220, but over-indulgence is the weakness in some clauses. For instance, I think identification papers, fingerprints or mugshots should be destroyed, let us say after ten years, if

Identification of Criminals Act
the person did not commit any other crime. I also think that certain signaletic cards should be destroyed in the case of certain types of persons. I refer to young people who commit a crime through an excess due to their age, do not commit any more during a period of five or eight years. I think their cards should be destroyed.
I would also make a difference as regards persons acquitted in the case of a very serious offence or breach of the law. I refer here to those accused of sexual offences who are later acquitted.
I feel that those people should be set aside in a special category and, at the end of five or six years, their files could be destroyed.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely against this bill but I would make certain amendments to it ensuring that the files of those who have been accused but not proven guilty are not completely destroyed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question! This is a Liberal bill.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I trust the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is calling "Question", does not wish to deny me the opportunity of taking part in this important debate. The fact that the motion has originated from the Liberal side is evidence of the many gifts possessed by those who sit with me in support of the government-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That means it will not get through.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The House has probably devoted more attention in recent years to the subject of the convicted criminal than to the person whose case has not proceeded to a conviction. Several years ago we enacted the Criminal Records Act to provide a certain measure of relief in the case of people who had been convicted of offences, by way of directing that records shall, in a sense, be sealed after a certain period of time. Many of us who were involved with the progress of that bill, and the lengthy discussions which took place in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, are concerned about the fact that so few of the provinces have done much to follow up this legislation and ensure that a person who has been convicted is not placed in an invidious position. A person who is convicted and has been pardoned ought to be able to say when he is answering the question: "Have you been convicted?" "No." Or perhaps we should insist that the question be framed so as to read: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime of which you have not been pardoned?"
People come to me in a difficult dilemma as to how to answer, as they have been convicted of a crime, served their sentence and have subsequently been pardoned and they are asked in some form of government process or questioning, usually not at the federal level,-and that is

where the problem comes in-"Have you ever been convicted of a crime?"
The clear intention of this legislation, which members of all parties of the House supported so strongly several years ago, was that persons should be able to answer "no" to that type of question, or at least have the assurance that the kind of question which could be asked would be very limited, indeed. There is a serious difficulty in the followup to the law by the provincial authorities. This parliament does not have complete legislative jurisdiction, as we all know, and there are many aspects of the problem which can be dealt with only by provincial law. I would suggest to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), who I understand does intend to bring in an amendment to this legislation during the present session, that he attempt to provide strong leadership to the provinces in order that the clear intention of parliament in this legislation can be observed.
I might also note along the same line that we have also provided that a person who is accused of an offence, and perhaps may even in a sense be guilty, may be given an absolute discharge before any conviction is registered. We have also done this to assist a person who either has committed an offence or, we might say, suspending judgment, may possibly have committed an offence. He is the kind of person we have been concerned about.
Referring to the explanatory note to this bill, we find pointed out there:
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Identification of Criminals Act to provide that the results of the identification process e.g., mug shots, fingerprints may not be published unless and until the person in question has been convicted of the offence for which he was charged and subjected to the identification process. Similarly, provision is made for prohibiting the publication and for destroying the results of the identification process when the person has been acquitted.
I think in order to understand the change which the hon. member is purporting to make through this bill we ought to look at the legislation which is being amended and which, incidentally, happens to be one of the shortest pieces of legislation on the federal statute books. The full title is "An Act respecting the identification of criminals", but is more often cited as the Identification of Criminals Act. Since this is such a short act, I should like to read it in its entirety to the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will take a few minutes; it helps to fill out the time.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I think the hon. member should allow me to make my own speech, Mr. Speaker, and I would note that he has taken up some time with his interjection. The second section of this legislation reads as follows:
Any person in lawful custody, charged with, or under conviction of an indictable offence, or who has been apprehended under the Extradition Act or the Fugitive Offenders Act, may be subjected, by or under the direction of those in whose custody he is, to the measurements, processes and operations practised under the system for the identification of criminals commonly known as the Bertillon Signaletic System, or to any measurements, processes or operations sanctioned by the Governor in Council having the like object in view.
(2)	Such force may be used as is necessary to the effectual carrying out and application of such measurements, processes and operations.
(3)	The signaletic cards and other results thereof may be published for the purpose of affording information to officers and others engaged in the execution or administration of the law.
April 22, 1974

It is this publication of fingerprints, etc., which the hon. member wishes to bring dramatically to our attention today. He has illustrated for us that we have to consider the provisions I have just read also in connection with Section 3 of the same Identification of Criminals Act, which I shall again just draw to the attention of the House as follows:
No one having the custody of any such person, and no one acting in his aid or under his direction, and no one concerned in such publication incurs any liability, civil or criminal, for anything lawfully done under this Act.
This Section 3 is a very broad exculpatory section which gives very complete, probably total, protection to all those who may act under Section 2 of the legislation and, therefore, is the kind of protection which the law should give only very cautiously.
As I understand the contention of the hon. member who proposes this legislation, he thinks we have not in the past in passing this legislation acted with sufficient care, and that the net covering what may be done, and what may be protected from potential lawsuit, has been cast far too wide. He proposes to remedy that by Bill C-220 which is before us for discussion this afternoon.
The actual changes the hon. member would make in the legislation, looking at the text of his Bill C-220, would be to change subsection 2(3) to the following:
Where the person who has been subjected to the measurements, processes and operations under subsection (1)
(a)	has been convicted of the offence with which he was charged,
(b)	has been ordered to be surrendered or returned pursuant to the
provisions of the Extradition Act or the Fugitive Offenders Act as the
case may be, or
(c)	has escaped lawful custody,
the signaletic cards and other results thereof may be published for the purpose of affording information to officers and others engaged in the execution or administration of the law.
His subsection (4) would be as follows:
Where the person who has been subjected to the measurements, processes and operations under subsection (1) has been acquitted of the offence with which he has been charged, or has been discharged pursuant to the provisions of the Extradition Act or the Fugitive Offenders Act as the case may be, the court shall prohibit the publication and order the destruction of the signaletic cards and other results of the identification process.
I share some of the doubts that have been expressed about this bill by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), and I think perhaps the hon. member goes too far in what he proposes to do. As I understand the effect of his bill, and I trust I am reading this correctly, he would prohibit not only the giving of information in the public forum but would also prohibit the giving of it even in the internal forum of police work. The word that is used here in this section is "publish" and we normally think about this as publishing abroad, that is at large to the world. However, as we know from the traditional defamation action, publication can have a much more limited meaning than that. Even the contemporary connotation of "publish" in the written form in the newspaper or the monograph is not at all the only meaning of the word "publish". The word "publish" can be used even in respect of the transmission of an idea to a single person.
I recall that one committee of which I was a member decided for that reason that the word "publish" was not a
Identification of Criminals Act very good word to use. This was the committee on hate propaganda which reported to the federal government in 1965. This led, of course, to the amendment to the Criminal Code dealing with the subject of hate propaganda. This committee in its deliberations thought that the word "communication" would be a more precise word in the context of what was in question there, because its meaning clearly went further in the direction of providing for a situation which the word "publish" is not normally presumed to include in our normal conversation, though it is actually included in the legal and technical dictionary meaning.
So, I think the effect of the bill which my hon. friend is proposing would actually be to prohibit internal communication. How can our police forces possibly do their work adequately if they are unable to transmit information to other police forces?


Mr. Blais:: But these people are not convicted.


Mark R. MacGuigan: If the hon. member wishes to ask a question I would be very pleased to sit down and await his comments.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, my question simply is whether my friend interprets the statute to mean abolition of publication in any event or only if the person charged is not convicted.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I interpret Bill C-220 as prohibiting publication until conviction is established. However, when a person is arrested for one crime he may very well be wanted for other crimes,* and it might be necessary for the prosecution to have this information in order to build up an adequate case. There may be facts available in other cities which other police forces could furnish, even in respect of the same crime.
I would think the work of the police forces in our country would be somewhat inhibited if we were to go as far as my hon. friend recommends. It seems to me he is going to the opposite extreme from the law in force. He has convinced me, and I am sure his persuasive words have had a great effect on other members of the House as well, that the present legislation is not very satisfactory. But in persuading us of that he has overstated his case. I think he has over-reacted with this legislation, and I feel the consequences of this legislation would be undesirable and not in the public interest.
I commend the hon. member for bringing this suggestion before us and especially for the careful drafting I know he has done to produce a bill on this scale. Those of us who are lawyers recognize, of course, the care that must go into each word in the drafting of a document such as this. I believe he has placed before us an admirable bill, but I would urge him to go back and re-examine it, taking into account the suggestions made here today.
In this hour, Mr. Speaker, the suggestions hon. members make do not always immediately see the light of day. But I think one of the most valuable features of this hour is that we are engaged here in an educational process not only for the country at large but also for ourselves. We need this

April 22, 1974
Identification of Criminals Act
process of education by our fellow members, and this hour is the best teaching hour we have in the House of Commons. My hon. friend has taught us something. What I am suggesting is that I hope we in return have taught him something and that he will go back to the drafting board and re-think the proposal he has set before us. I hope in years to come-and in not too many years to come-the hon. member will again be successful in the draw and will get his bill on at a very early stage in our considerations so that it will have an opportunity to be referred, with the support of the members of this House, to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the committee which is normally charged with responsibility for the legal affairs of this House and which we know possesses the very considerable expertise of lawyers from all parts of the country and on both sides.
I think in years to come the hon. member will thank us for the fact that we have been able to refine his ideas and his language. When this bill is returned to the House, as I do not doubt it will be next year, and when it in some form sees the light of day, perhaps under the name of the Solicitor General-who may even be my hon. friend-he will be very pleased that this educational process in the House has worked well in both directions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what we call "killing with kindness".


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, I am not very kindly inclined towards criminals and I may not perhaps have cultivated the virtue of charity as much as my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but when I deal with criminals I am much more concerned with protecting society than the criminals.
Every day we see examples of society's problems in this regard.
Today, in the Montreal Matin, we can read at the top of the first page: Foul play suspected in ten-year old's death. If an adult contributed to his death I think this murder is vile. I resume my quotations from the paper: Restaurant owner mows down three motorcyclists. I am reading one newspaper only for if I were to take Le Devoir, La Presse, the Journal de Montreal, Le Jour or any other newspaper, other crimes would probably be reported.
This is why, I think, it is essential for policemen who have to investigate those crimes to have the necessary tools in order to work effectively.
It is all very well to have compassion on those who are charged with a crime, but let us be realistic. When teenagers are involved, I agree that that they should be treated with a little more clemency, in order to spare them a stigma they would keep for the rest of their life. Moreover, perhaps they did not make those mistakes. We are dealing with minors, young people of 16 or 17 with no police record. It is obvious that we must show discretion towards them.
However, as far as habitual criminals are concerned, people discharged from prison but condemned again for other serious crimes and still sought by police for murder,

rape, fraud or any other crime, it is important for the authorities to have the necessary tools to face the facts.
The bill reads as follows:
1. Subsection 2(3) of the Identification of Criminals Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(3) Where the person who has been subjected to the measurements, processes and operations under subsection (1)
(a) has been convicted of the offence
In other words, publication will be allowed only when the person is convicted. This is out of this world. Why not say then that taking steps to find a person and identify him or her will be allowed only when this person has been convicted?
According to the law we have now, signaletic cards are most important to find criminals. If we are to wait for a conviction, the best records will not be of any use.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that significant reserves must be made about Bill C-220. It is all right to have advanced ideas and to think and be a freethinker but we must not overdo it if individuals are to respect the administrative structures of this country. Authority must take action to be respected.
For those who have some notion of it, history teaches us that when progressive ideas get too strong in some country and when criminals are considered heroes instead of public enemies, this country begins losing prestige and to sink into decay.
Canada must avoid this. Furthermore, I think hon. members of the New Democratic Party should first show more respect for the life of unborn children by condemning abortion instead of fighting for it. It seems more important to me to protect these children's life than the criminals' who have no respect for their neighbour. In short, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill goes too far.
It is important that governments have a sense of justice so that each citizen feels happy to live in the country, so that nobody feels victimized. But we know that the freedom of one person ends where the freedom of the other begins; in other words, when one encroaches on the other's rights, the latter begin to lose his freedom and then he is less free, he does not feel free any more. I shall not say that we must favour criminals or crime, but to alleviate the measures against crime, which are definitely so light, is to favour crime. I think that it is against individual freedom. This bill does go against individual freedom since it prevents the police or the authorities concerned from taking the necessary steps to arrest those who prejudice the freedom of other people.
I do not think that this bill must be enacted or accepted by the Canadian people before decline has weakened us enough. It should thus be completely amended to give perhaps more justice to young people, as I said earlier.
As far as murderers, gangsters and criminals are concerned, I do not see very much where is the interest for society to protect them.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I had not intended to speak on this bill
April 22, 1974

until I came to the chamber and had an opportunity to listen to some of my colleagues participating in this private members' hour. I think that one could justifiably, on the basis of this afternoon's debate, suggest a change of name for the private members' hour to the "hypocrisy hour". Because in listening to the hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) filibustering his colleague's bill, though I realize that he did not really want to do so, one is provided with some justification for the suggestion that there is something radically wrong with the system, or procedures.
This bill is basically a very good and very enlightened bill, one which, I would like to state at the outset, I support. I share the feelings of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this is a good bill and that it should be sent forthwith to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for further study. So far as I can see, the provisions of this Identification of Criminals Act are often abused. Section 2, as the hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville pointed out, has a discretionary feature in that it states that:
Any person in lawful custody, charged with, or under conviction of an indictable offence, or who has been apprehended under the Extradition Act or the Fugitive Offenders Act, may be subjected ...
This is the part I would like to speak on for a moment or two. I have seen instances where police have in some cases, in my opinion, improperly invoked or tried to invoke the provisions of the Identification of Criminals Act when the circumstances made it clearly unnecessary to do so. I would like to point out to members in the House that on many occasions a criminal charge itself provides a punishment that can never be redressed. I am sure all hon. members realize that if, for example, a person is charged with a serious offence, comes to trial before a jury and is completely acquitted, on future occasions most people do not say: "There is John Jones, the man who was unjustly charged with robbery and was acquitted". They say: "There is that Jones fellow who was once up for robbery". This is the type of stigma that attaches to people even though they have been given a lawful trial and have been acquitted. I will not add any more on this point but I think it would be very interesting for the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to issue guidelines and to make certain that this Identification of Criminals Act is not being abused by over zealous police officers across the country.
At this time I would also like to point out another area that bears looking into, and that is the department's policy regarding conditional discharges which, as I understand it-and many of my colleagues have brought this to my attention-is often opposed on principle by over zealous prosecuting officers who, in my opinion, often go against the spirit and intent of this government's policy by making it very difficult for defence counsel to utilize the very provisions that this government, very commendably, recently built into the Criminal Code.
At this time I do not want to be accused of speaking for too long because I would be doing what I am suggesting it is wrong for my colleagues to do, that is, talking out a very worthwhile piece of legislation that I for one would like to see referred to the committee. I would urge my colleagues to join me in this regard and not filibuster this bill, which
Identification of Criminals Act I think is one of the best I have seen come before the House during private members' hour recently.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) when he introduced his bill.
I must say that from the very beginning, he seemed to me to be somewhat reticent, as though he wanted to plead in favour of this bill, but without conviction. I think he was quite sincere when he said that a burden should not be placed on some people for the rest of their lives unless they had appeared before the court, been formally charged and found guilty.
He has done some research on this bill, I am sure. He explained why we should not do these things, but I am still hesitant to accept his plea, regardless of his eloquence.
On a number of occasions, while considering private members' bills, he has looked into some situations which certainly appeared worthwhile to those who had brought them forward, but which seemed to show certain shortcomings after they had been scrutinized by other hon. members.
If the hon. member for Nipissing has himself listened to those who have accepted to participate in this debate, he must, I am sure, be entertaining some doubts by now.
The hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) went further and has denounced certain offences brought before the courts. As the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) was saying a while ago I think, it is not in any way permitted to interfere with the courts' work or with the carrying out of justice.
We have now reached the point where society has become quite belligerent. One hon. member was talking about it a few minutes ago. One has only to read newspapers, look at TV or listen to the radio to realize that people indulge in violence nearly everywhere.
If pieces of legislation are not brought in and discussed, if they are not thoroughly considered, we will feel somewhat remorseful. As I said earlier, there is violence in society.
The hon. member for Nipissing has pondered over the matter and suggested that if the person involved is not convicted, then his records should perhaps be destroyed. But it has also been pointed out during this debate that people may not be convicted for the offence which brought them into court, although they may have taken part in 15 or 20 other offences.
If the police or other investigating officers can be provided with some means that will enable them to identify the accused brought before the tribunal, then society will likely be relieved of a burden.
I think that the member for Nipissing was referring to the individual, but in terms of the community, of society, one must remember that a given measure may at one time or another make it difficult for some people.

April 22, 1974
Identification of Criminals Act
I agree fully with the hon. member when he suggests that one should not have to carry the burden of a charge if one is not guilty of any offence. On that point, I agree.
One other thing comes to mind: the police should be permitted to use whatever tools they have been provided with, but I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, the way certain business firms set up identification records by making use of fingerprinting, when they extend credit to people.
I do not think these practices are covered by the bill. And this does happen. People accused of no crime whatsoever have identification records set up against them merely for purposes of credit purchasing in stores. If these people resort to the identification process, why should we, in our wisdom, at least I think that the hon. member said it earlier, deprive the authorities that are trying to protect society of those tools? It is just as necessary.
I think we should devote to this problem much attention and much more time than we now have at our disposal.
Someone referred earlier to unions. Everyday we hear people say that unions harbour people who have criminal records or have committed offences and who are themselves responsible for the violence that exists. This has probably not been proved. I am sure that there are union people who have no twinges of conscience. They are doing a job and want to keep on developing the labour movement. However, some people who should not be there happen to worm their way in this movement. They are taking advantage of society and deprive other individuals of their freedom. If we think we can solve this problem by denying the necessary tools to those who are responsible for protecting society, we will do a disservice to society.
I am sure the hon. member for Nipissing wants to see his bill passed. I agree with my other colleagues who said that the main thrust of this bill was good. This measure is valid but I agree, however, with those of my colleagues who expressed much reservation in this regard.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say I am more concerned by the fact that we would deprive those who were asked to protect us of a tool which, in my view, is absolutely necessary. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I can call it six o'clock. [Translation]
We are here again faced with the difficulty encountered last week with two clocks indicating different times. One says three minutes to six, and the other two minutes to six. I understand that private members hour started today at three minutes to five and should therefore be up at three minutes to six. The hon. member might have 30 seconds left.


Mr. Trudel:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, the hon. member rises on a point of order.


Jacques L. Trudel: Well, I wanted to abide by the ruling of the Chair a while ago because the debate started at three minutes to six. I looked at the clock facing me and it

indicated three minutes to six. That is why I concluded my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think a true difficulty arose recently when the hon. member for Nipissing had the floor a few minutes before six.
It is obvious I think to all hon. members that there is a difference of about two minutes between the clock facing me and the two on the sides. I think we can take for granted that there are now at least three minutes left before six which means that the hour appointed for the consideration of private members business has now expired and if hon. members agree we will now leave this House for dinner.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.58 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. Lalonde that Bill C-22, intituled Canadian Football Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible and even embarrassing for me to have to stand up in this House to speak on an issue dealing with football when this country is beset with so many critical issues affecting the lives of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: I hear the hon. members opposite already making noises. 1 just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that last Thursday 1 gave them the opportunity to withdraw this bill when I asked for the unanimous consent of this House to move the following motion:
In view of the alarming growth of labour disputes already causing strikes in vital areas, and the inflationary spiral giving rise to them, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis): That this House welcomes the Prime Minister back from his vacation in Barbados and requests him to postpone the government's political football bill by bringing forward immediate legislation to alleviate the staggering inflationary problems which affect all Canadians.
As hon. members well know, this motion was defeated by members on the government side. I am not sure whether they opposed the part of the motion which welcomed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) back from his vacation
April 22, 1974

or the portion to postpone the football bill in favour of more pressing legislation.
While the cost of living rises at a rate unprecedented in our history, the Liberal government still refuses to launch any attack to protect the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. Nothing can be more ludicrous than this House sitting to discuss football while record breaking increases in the cost of living have once again been announced. It is incredible that while Canadians from one end of our country to the other reel in shock from food prices and housing costs, the Liberal government places before this House, as the priority item, legislation banning the World Football League from entering Toronto. At a time when every member of this House has received hundreds of letters urging the government to take action to control run away inflation, how can the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), in all honesty, even consider this is the time to discuss football?
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that were it not for the incompetence of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), who has failed over and over again to stop this illegal postal strike we are presently faced with, doubtless many more letters would have reached the offices of each and every member. Yet the government has chosen to force football legislation on to the House, despite the pressing priorities facing each and every Canadian in so many other fields.
Not only does the government not have its priorities straight in introducing legislation, but even in the legislation before us its priorities are not in the right order. If we are to get involved in sports in this country, then surely we should not be putting the emphasis on professional sports but rather on the development of amateur athletes, as well as the over-all physical fitness activities of all Canadians.
The federal government's purpose-in sports and fitness as in everything else-should be to help all Canadians to enjoy richer, fuller and more satisfying lives. The government cannot achieve that purpose by concentrating on, and indeed emphasizing the importance of, professionalism, as it is with this bill. Our most important national resource is the youth of this country, and, as with any other resource, a national development policy must be initiated, with incentives for participation heading the list.
I made it very clear during the debate on the Combines Investigation Act, Bill C-7, that not only do I believe that for us to debate this bill at this critical time is wrong, but that the bill itself will not fulfil the purpose for which it was intended, namely to protect the Canadian Football League.
I would be the last person wishing to see the demise of the Canadian Football League in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, it would be my wish to see greater opportunities afforded the youth of this country by encouraging even greater Canadian participation in the Canadian Football League than that proposed in the bill before us. On the other hand, a recent statement made by a great ex-football star and great Canadian, Russ Jackson, who said that if the Canadian Football League cannot stand on its own feet then it should not stand at all, should be considered.
Canadian Professional Football
Be that as it may, what is of prime concern to me, and should be of prime concern to every member of this House, is that the youth of this country be afforded every conceivable opportunity not only to participate in sports and become physically, as well as mentally, proficient, but be afforded as well the opportunity to participate in professional sports in Canada regardless of league. They should be protected in their choice of team and league. Indeed the government has introduced legislation to this effect. Allow me to quote section 32.3(1) (b) of the Combines Investigation Act amending Bill C-7:
Every one who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person
(b) to limit unreasonably the opportunity for any other person to negotiate with and, if agreement is reached, to play for the team or club of his choice in a professional or amateur league
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable on conviction to
imprisonment for two years.
Naturally, we would not want to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) imprisoned for a two year period. However, if he had been imprisoned in the past, then we would not be faced with this ridiculous bill that we have to stand here and debate at this time.
However, I personally approve in principle of the sports sections of the combines investigation bill, which ironically is in total contradiction to the bill before us. We have, on the one hand, the government submitting a bill which it alleges will stimulate competition. On the other hand, we have the same government introducing a bill to prevent competition. If this bill before us becomes law in its present form, we will be the first country in the world outlawing international sports competition in a certain field and will become the laughing stock of the sports world.
Has this government forgotten that this country was built on free enterprise? Has this government forgotten that this country was built on competition?


An hon. Member:: I hope so.


Otto John Jelinek: I hear the NDP yelling "I hope so." They are against free enterprise. The reason I escaped with my family from Czechoslovakia was to get away from guys like that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Since when does any government have the right to dictate to the people of Canada what they can or cannot see in professional sports, or for that matter in any form of entertainment?
Where was the federal government when the World Hockey Association entered the Canadian sports scene? Where was the concern for the advancement of opportunities for the youth of this country? Why did the government fail to provide safeguards and encouragement to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, and why are there no proposed changes in this bill relating to hockey, truly our national sport? Why has football been singled out as a target of intervention? Would it not have been reasonable to expect the government to take a firm stand on the
1650

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football protection of this sport long before the World Football League was even contemplated? Certainly safeguards are needed to keep our amateur junior teams viable.
Possibly the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) interfered in football at this stage of the game to set a precedent for Montreal. The ultimate use of the Olympic stadium after the 1976 Olympic Games by a National Football League team is a great possibility. It is a possibility that has been rumoured. Even Mayor Drapeau has suggested on numerous occasions in the past that it might be his wish to bring a National Football League team into Montreal. If this were to happen, then unfortunately the Montreal Alouettes, which do not get the crowds they deserve, would be hurt financially a great deal and, therefore, the Canadian Football League may suffer.
While we are on this subject of the protection of other sports, may I ask whether the government should not consider obtaining revenue for amateur sport development from foreign organizations such as professional ice shows? And I am speaking specifically about American ice shows, professional basketball teams, professional basketball players or golfers who come into this country. Why are we not concerned about them? They come into this country and continue to drain off all our top talents without contributing to Canadian amateur organizations which have invested their time and money in developing these athletes.
As I have previously outlined, I am opposed to this bill as it in no way serves its purpose of protecting the Canadian Football League. I believe that contrary to my wishes, however, the bill will pass into committee stage, at which time I hope hon. members will seriously consider options which will truly Canadianize professional sports in Canada but will at the same time allow foreign teams to play in Canada under certain conditions and with the approval of the local populace and their civic authorities.
Some of the options or amendments which in my opinion should be considered in professional sports in Canada-and I stress professional sports, not just professional football-are the following. First, to have the civic authority in the designated area consent to the foreign team operating in their area. Why should we not let the people of a certain area decide what they want to charge and what they want to participate in instead of meddling with business that is not even national or interprovincial business?
Second, the foreign team should guarantee to the satisfaction of a Canadian professional sports league concerned to save harmless the Canadian league that there will be no decrease in equalization payments based upon the sharing of gate receipts within the Canadian league due to the operation of the foreign team in the designated area.
Third, the foreign team, at the direction of, and in an amount determined by, the Canadian league, should contribute monies toward the support of the amateur league in Canada.
Fourth, the foreign team, and all other teams within that foreign league, should honour the contracts of players on teams operated by members of the Canadian league and not interfere with the regulation by the Canadian league

of the recruitment and allocation of players within that league.
Fifth, the foreign team should undertake not to permit any game in which it participates in Canada to be broadcast in any area where such broadcast would, in the opinion of the Canadian league, adversely affect the gate, broadcasting or other receipts of a game in which two teams operated by members of the Canadian league are participating.
In this manner we would give the Canadian Football League, if we want to be specific and talk on football, the right to veto any particular team in any one city, rather than give the federal government authority to close the door on international competition. International competition has been the basis of all sports competition the world over. This government is now trying to stop that. It is trying to set a precedent with one sport. That has never before been seen in the world. In this manner also, Canadian professional sports would be protected to a greater extent than by totally banning international competition in a specific sport.
I said I would be brief and that I am embarrassed to be discussing football at this time, with all the problems we have arising from the inflationary situation. In closing, let me just say that, in retrospect, the Minister of National Health and Welfare should have closed his remarks in Regina last February with the following statement: "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have read everything that has been written by all of the competing interests with regard to this debate and I have heard advanced various theories with regard to the motivation of the government in bringing forward this bill.
I want to say to the members of the government and the House that, as a member of this House, I carry into it no brief for either of the professional organizations involved which will either be the recipient of a benefit or a burden, as the case may be, from this legislation. However, I do carry a brief into this House for the people I have the honour to represent. I have heard from some of those people, and from what I have heard the opinion of those who have written or telephoned me accords with mine. That is fortunate. The opinion is that if ever there was an ill-conceived piece of legislation, and ill-timed in terms of the problems which face our country today, it is this.


Mitchell William Sharp: Then why don't you sit down?


Walter David Baker: I must say that I have been sitting in this House throughout this debate. I have been listening desperately to the government attempting to do indirectly what it wants to do directly, and that is to withdraw the bill by asking us to stop talking on it.


An hon. Member:: Come again?


Mitchell William Sharp: How will you vote?
April 22, 1974


Walter David Baker: When a Member of Parliament sees a piece of bad, ill-timed legislation, he ought not to sit in his seat because some football player on the other side says he should. I did not come to this House to give what might be considered tacit support to ill-timed, bad legislation. I say to the government in all seriousness that there is nothing which indicates more clearly its lack of relevance with respect to the problems of the day than the pig-headed, wrong-headed effort it is making in connection with this legislation. Particularly is this so today, when I note that 2,000 employees of Air Canada have been laid off, inflation is rampant, and the postal unions are so disgusted with the archaic and dinosaur-like methods of the government in bargaining with the Civil Service that they are prepared to withhold their services. This is a time when the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) should be directing his attention toward mediation, instead of publishing a stupid advertisement two days running which only inflames the situation.
That is typical of a government which has chosen to bring forward a bill of the kind before us, ignoring the national issues which are concerning our people. We do not intend to be party to that kind of irrelevancy and ineptitude. If ever there was a monument to government ineptitude, it is the present bill introduced at this time.
A great deal of reference has been made to the views of Mr. Russell Jackson, a Canadian who made his way in football without assistance from the government opposite or from any government. Mr. Jackson's name has been used in this chamber on many occasions. He put his opinion clearly when he said:
I just think that if the CFL is too weak to face this kind of competition, we are going to lose it eventually anyway. If it can't compete without government legislation, then some other league, some other team such as the Northmen, or some other sport entirely, will knock it out.
That is a statement by a man who knows Canadian football. It might be pointed out again that the legislation before us will not help the Canadian Football League. Many reasons have been advanced in the course of the debate and I shall not repeat them. Not a single speaker from the government side, including the minister, has shown us how this legislation will help Canadian football. I am not prepared to take the government's word for it because this is the same government which told us there was a fuel shortage in Canada and then went on to make a wasteful purchase of Roumanian oil, after which we found out there was not a shortage at all.
The people I represent in this House say there are two real issues which concern us. First, there is the irrelevance of the government's action at this time. They say it is not proper, in the face of the urgent problems now before the country, that parliament should be dealing with football. I concur in that view. The second thing they say is that parliament has more important things to do.


An hon. Member:: Right! So sit down and we will vote on it.


Walter David Baker: As a matter of propriety, parliament ought not to be injecting itself into the field of professional sport. That is the second consideration. They say the government does have a mandate with respect to amateur
Canadian Professional Football sport, a role to play in terms of helping to secure the participation of the greatest possible number of Canadians in sport and fitness programs. The appearance of this bill, and the pressure the government has applied, indicate how it has failed in carrying out that mandate.
There is a lot to be done in the field of amateur sport. All of us, I believe, have a feeling of gratification, a sense of obligation toward those who engage in the coaching of young players, and a sense of pride in the achievement of those who take part in amateur sports. Those who work with boys and girls, helping them to participate, are the unsung heroes of sport in Canada. These people are being neglected as a result of the government's preoccupation with a field in which it has no real reason to be active. Think of the shortage of playgrounds in Canada, the shortage of equipment, the fact that there are not enough arenas.
When I think of the great value there is in figure skating, soccer, lacrosse and hockey on the amateur level, and of the thousands of young people who are involved in these sports, and weigh tnis against tne preoccupation of the Minister ot National Healtn and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) with professional sport, I begin to wonder how the priorities of the government are arranged. Where is its sense of relevancy? Where is its sense of urgency? I come to the conclusion that the government is out of touch.


Mr. Gillies:: What is the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not going to waste the time of the House.


James McPhail Gillies: It is you over there who brought the bill in. You are caught with it anyway.


Walter David Baker: I, for one, intend to vote against this legislation, and I invite other members of the House who feel that important issues in Canada are being neglected to mark that feeling by their own votes. The other alternative is for members who have some influence with the minister to go to him and tell him it is not too late for him to withdraw this piece of irrelevancy. I do not want to disturb the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) while he is reading his newspaper over there, but I do think that he, as a member who has from time to time made statements in this House on matters of importance and relevance, should be one of those expressing to the minister his concern with respect to the bill in front of us.
I commend, as did my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) -


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: You were reading your paper; don't deny it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I was reading the newspaper in an attempt to find any report of intelligent remarks by the press gallery in respect of anything that was being said by the opposition members on this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
27451-41*

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football


An hon. Member:: Why don't you make a speech tonight?


Walter David Baker: I do not want to prolong the point, Mr. Speaker, but if the hon. member wants to read something I suggest he turn to the comic page where he might find something which is equal to the relevance of this bill in respect of Canadian context and conditions.
Before being interrupted by the hon. member for Nipiss-ing (Mr. Blais) I was about to call attention to the speech made in this House by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I think that was one of the most thoughtful speeches I have heard in respect of the elements which are or ought to be the minds of members in respect of this bill.
That hon. member laid out six very important points which ought to be considered by hon. members, some of which I have touched upon. He said that this bill could not by any stretch of the imagination be construed as an attempt to defend anything cultural. He called that a phony aspect of the considerations of this bill. He said that this legislation would be futile in respect to protecting the Canadian Football League, which every member of this House wants to see flourish. The point is that this bill will not protect that league. He went on to say, and I think this is a most important part of his speech, that this government is denying to Canadians the basic right of viewing sports in the manner they wish.
If you look at the restrictive provisions of this bill you will find that they are restrictions which you cannot find in any other piece of legislation. All in all, the bill is bad. It is an irrelevant piece of legislation which will not carry out the object the framers of the bill would like everyone to believe it will carry out. The bill encroaches upon the rights of Canadians in respect of the field of entertainment in a way no other government has ever seen fit to do. The bill puts this parliament into a position where it is invading a field it has no right to be in.
As pointed out by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), there is a real question as to the constitutionality of the powers of this bill, and there is certainly a question as to the propriety of the powers it purports to give to the government.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, in the face of all the problems confronting this country, with people crying out for a reasonable choice of housing at a reasonable cost, people asking the government to devote its priorities to land banking in order to increase the supply of serviced land and to engage in a dramatic program of servicing acres of land so there will be adequate land for housing, in an age when the people of Canada are saying to this government that because of inflation they do not know where they are going to be next year and do not know whether labour contracts negotiated this year will be relevant, at a time when the whole system of bargaining in respect of the Public Service is breaking down and becoming irrelevant because it is slow, cumbersome and unresponsive to needs, at a time when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has indicated his department is in difficulties in supplying hopper cars for the movement of grain in Canada, when his airline, for whatever reason, is not functioning and is tying up transportation, and at a time when post office workers have decided, rightly or

wrongly, to withhold their services, we in this House are discussing football!


An hon. Member:: You are delaying.


Walter David Baker: Let me say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Cafik) that the government which he supports sets the priority for legislation in this House, and if that government had its priorities right we would not have started to debate this bill. But having started this debate we intend to make sure that we do not become the unofficial lackeys of this government by doing what it has suggested.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Let it come to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I am obviously getting home to some hon. members over there. I note that the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) has suddenly broken his notable silence. Perhaps I have knocked a few apples out of his tree. Certainly he looks decidedly uncomfortable.


An hon. Member:: We don't want to waste time.


Walter David Baker: I should like to hear his views in respect of this bill.


An hon. Member:: Let's have a vote.


Walter David Baker: I would also like to hear from the hon. member for Eglinton, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp).


Mr. Cafik:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) agree to answer a question?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I have a very simple question I should like to direct to the hon. member. I can understand the frustration of anyone on any subject, but if he believes there are other priorities-and I do believe there are other things more important than this-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: -would the hon. member recommend to his colleagues that we bring this debate to a conclusion by voting one way or the other?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we have just had the first ray of light in respect of the attitude of this government. At last a responsible supporter of the government, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has admitted for the record that there are more important things to debate than football.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is merely-
April 22, 1974


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member on a point of order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I should just like to point out that the hon. member is quite right in that I do recognize other priorities, as does the minister and this government, so let us get on with the bill and vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I would suggest that this is not a point of order. I recognize the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there are other alternatives that could be put to this government, and I will do so at this point.


An hon. Member:: They could resign.


Walter David Baker: Aside from resigning, they could withdraw this bill this evening, or they could table it.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Let a vote decide.


Walter David Baker: The government could withdraw or table the bill.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Let parliament decide.


Walter David Baker: I am sure I speak for every member of the official opposition when I suggest that we would be delighted if the government would do either of the things suggested in order to bring on legislation to deal with the cancer of inflation within this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I would like-


An hon. Member:: Make a speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you make a speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I understand the hon. member is rising for the purpose of asking a question. Does the hon. member agree to accept a question?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered two questions in the course of this debate. If the hon. member wishes to make a speech then let him stand up and make a speech. Let us not have the member use subterfuge again to try to do indirectly what he is afraid to do directly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The greatest contribution that has been made in the course of this debate, I must say, has been the
Canadian Professional Football sudden revelation that there are some people on the government side, though perhaps not on the treasury benches, who are prepared to admit there is something more important for this parliament to deal with. I am very grateful that the hon. member has indicated the difficulties there are on the other side of the House so that the public can be made aware of them. Let me say there are some things for which there can be feelings of concern by all members of the House.
As a member of parliament I am tired of receiving letters from constituents who ask me when the government intends to deal with inflation, when the government intends to deal with housing, when it intends properly to administer the public service legislation and when it intends to take a look at the whole question of transportation in this country. When are we to deal with all these important things? I say to this government it is its duty to bring forward this legislation. If the government brings forward sound legislation we will undertake to support it; but we will not stand idly by or sit silent while it does nothing but deal in irrelevancies. We give our pledge on that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It has been pretty noisy during the last few minutes. I know the football season is not here yet, but I suppose the hon. member for Nipissing is rising on a point of order?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there is agreement that there are other matters we could be considering, and in view of the fact that the hon. member is the House leader for the Tories, I wonder whether the question might be put now, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Walter David Baker: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there may be some others who wish to speak on this bill, but I can give the House the undertaking that it is certainly not the wish of any responsible member of parliament to inordinately prolong discussion on this bill.


Mr. McKinley:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Nipissing wonders why some members do not allow the question to be put. I wonder if he recalls that during private members' hour today, when he had a motion which he wanted to put, his own members would not allow that motion to be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I guess now everybody has the right to the floor.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the bill presented in private members' hour was so important that I understand a number of speakers who had indicated previous to private members' hour that they intended to speak were not reached until the hour had expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I think all hon. members have had a chance to play football games so let us see if we can now recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe.

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-22 I think I should first say that truth is indeed often stranger than fiction.


An hon. Member:: God, I wish I had said that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You said it the first time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We might take as an example last Thursday. The government was then faced with inflation running at 10.4 per cent per annum and with wage earners who had had their purchasing power eroded by 1.8 per cent in 1973. The government was faced with postal workers who were tying up the mail from coast to coast while airport firefighters were disrupting air travel at Canada's main airports. The government was also faced with 2,100 air controllers threatening what the air controllers call a total airline shutdown, which is similar to what 136 seaway pilots had succeeded in doing in respect to the St. Lawrence Seaway. There were reports of rising labour militancy across the land, including violence on the picket line with 400 Toronto food workers struck.
Yet on that Thursday, late in the evening the government chose, from among 17 items of government business that could have been debated, to ask parliament to debate this bill concerned with who should play football in Toronto, who should own the team that plays the game, and what league the team should be in. Mr. Speaker, in asking for a debate on the football bill the government had to move the matter from 12th position of priority to the first position of priority. The government had to move it ahead of items such as a bill to help control rising commodity prices, which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), if he were here I know would agree we have assured him will receive speedy passage in this House when the government introduces it. It had to be moved ahead of a bill to protect human health from contamination in the environment. This football bill had to be moved ahead of another one which might even have brought more competition into our banking system in this country.
Having decided to introduce the bill, after one hour and five minutes in which he explained the bill to the House the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) then asked the House to pass the bill speedily with as few debaters as possible. Then the same Minister of National Health and Welfare, apparently a little worried that the bill might not pass, was very quick to claim that the matter was a "gut" issue, but of course not a matter of confidence. I found it very interesting that a minister introducing a bill would show so little confidence himself in its passage that he would hasten to say to members that, in his view, it would not be a matter of confidence if the bill should be voted down by members of the House.
When this legislation was first proposed, and indeed after the bill was introduced, I did not intend to speak on the matter since I felt it would be well covered by members from the government and the opposition.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]
I say that because I believe that many in this country enjoy football, and certainly I am one. I have attended Canadian football games in Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Hamilton; and I have attended many Grey Cup games, including some held in Hamilton, Ottawa and Toronto. I even attended that famous Grey Cup game when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), wearing his Dracula hat and cape, was present. It may be that that is the instance when it dawned on the Prime Minister that this thing called the Grey Cup promoted national unity.
But after listening to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and after reading the bill I could see only two reasons why the government was advancing this bill as top priority. The first was that it seemed to me that they had decided that they must make some token gesture to indicate their concern with foreign investment or involvement in this country, and they felt that perhaps what might get the best press for them was to present this football legislation and shake their fist at the Yankee and say: Go home, Yankee, leave our football as it is.
The second reason I felt that the minister and his government were advancing the legislation was that there was vindictiveness towards those who were proposing to bring a new league into Canada and establish a new football team in Toronto. I say that because all of us here remember that only very recently another international football league played in Toronto, the Continental League. They had a team in Toronto, namely the Rivals. I do not recall this government or its predecessor uttering the slightest murmur that they felt that somehow that entry into the Toronto market was objectionable.
So I am suggesting that there are possibly only two basic reasons why this government is virtually using closure to try to get this bill through the House: one is the token objection that they wish to make toward foreign investment in this country; the second is the vindictive streak in this government toward the promoters of the foreign team.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: These are my preliminary views. I wanted to look up the history of football, so I went to the library and read two or three books on the Grey Cup and the CFL. I would strongly recommend that before the little trained seals across the way continue to support this legislation they read some of the history of our Canadian Football League and the Grey Cup itself. I think they might find it interesting to know that although we call it a Canadian game, in fact the game was derived from England. It evolved as a result of a league between McGill and Harvard. So right at its inception we find that it was in fact a Canadian-United States activity.
I also found that the Grey Cup was in fact made in England and exported here. I found that the Toronto Argonauts, who, as they say, are proud to play under the double blue, got the light blue from Cambridge and the dark blue from Oxford. So here we have what I would regard as not a truly Canadian sport in the sense that it
April 22, 1974

was developed and inspired by Canadians; it is a sport which in fact evolved in Canada from its predecessor in England, and which has subsequently been exported from Canada to the United States where they developed it still further to what is now known as the American game. I think we should all realize, first of all, that what we call Canadian football, about which the Minister of National Health and Welfare was so emotional, is in fact an evolving sport and one which will continue to evolve.
Having traced that background I think I should refer to what I regard as this government's token gesture. To do this I think it is only fair to review very quickly the extent of foreign ownership in this country.
If the government is indeed alarmed about foreign involvement in our business world and in our culture, surely it is cognizant of the figures made available under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act which came out in March, 1974. Hon. members will note that the total assets of foreign controlled corporations in Canada were approximately $50 billion in 1970, and in one year they went up $4.5 billion to $54.5 billion. Then we find that the profits of the same corporations-I am referring to the corporations controlled by foreign interests in Canada- rose between 1970 and 1971 from $3.5 billion to something over $4 billion, an increase of $582 million in one year, over half a billion dollars. I think it is interesting to note that over $2 billion on that amount-$2.2 billion-was actually paid to the foreign owners of those businesses in 1971. This sum made up of $791 million in dividends, $523 million in interest, and $925 million in business services such as management contracts.
Let me summarize. In 1971, foreign controlled corporations in the non-financial industries in Canada, while they accounted for only 4 per cent of all the corporations in Canada in terms of numbers, represented 37 per cent of the assets, 44 per cent of the equity, 38 per cent of the sales, 46 per cent of the profits, and 47 per cent of the positive taxable income in Canada. To which foreigners am I referring? Specifically, the report points out that in 1971 total payments to foreigners in the United States was $1,599 million.
I have been referring to a Canadian publication on the extent of foreign ownership in the business world in Canada. I would draw attention once again to the fact that this publication only came out in March, 1974 and that the most up to date figures given were those for 1971. It is regrettable that in order to get more recent figures concerning foreign investment in Canada I have to turn to the International Economic Report of the President of the United States.
In his report of February, 1974 he gives the American version of what they are receiving from Canada. We find that in 1972 the investment income receipts in the American books from Canada are shown as $2 billion. On top of that are royalties received by the Americans of $.4 billion. In 1973-and I again emphasize these are American presidential figures because Canadian figures are not provided-the investment income receipts had jumped to $2.5 billion, another $500 million increase, and royalties stayed at the $.4 billion level.
Canadian Professional Football
I mention that bit of background, Mr. Speaker, because I suggest that this government has not done anything effectively to reverse the foreign ownership of industry in Canada. In fact, in introducing and speaking on this bill the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) did not even know the name of the bill that his government passed concerning foreign investment in this country. If you check Hansard you will find that he referred to it as the "foreign policy review act" and took great credit for the fact that this was something that was somehow going to counteract foreign investment in Canada. The correct name is the Foreign Investment Review Act. I think that shows how lightly the cabinet weigh the various pieces of legislation that come before it. It may in fact be a freudian slip, that reference to the foreign policy review; undoubtedly their foreign policy does need review.
I have touched in a general sense on the impact of foreign investment in Canada but I should like to be more specific, Mr. Speaker. After listening to the debate on Friday I went home on the aeroplane to Toronto and for the first time in many years looked through a copy of Reader's Digest, that fine Canadian journal to which this government has given such favourable tax treatment in order to keep it in Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: Did you read George Hees' article?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In answer to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), there was not only George Hees' article, but on the inside front page I found an article by none other than the hon. Minister of the Environment and Fisheries (Mr. Davis). I found it most interesting that the article was entitled "Understanding is Half the Battle". In it he recited various things that the Reader's Digest had done that he thinks are commendable. Specifically he says "I commend the magazine", and he concludes by saying that we must remember those ringing words of Maurice Strong, who said "There is 'only one earth'".
Mr. Speaker, surely it is an odd situation that we have a government that says that national unity is at stake if certain people are playing football in Toronto this year or next year, yet apparently feels there is no particular reason to change the favourable tax treatment for the American publication Reader's Digest. I have seen some balance sheets and sales figures of professional football teams in Canada. I know what they earn and I know what their sales are. Reader's Digest sales in 1973 were $28.5 million and their profit was $1,757,000 after tax. Their shareholders' equity of $5,534,000 is larger than the revenue of the entire league. I can assure hon. members that it is probably three times, maybe four times, the size of the entire league.
What can we draw from this odd and apparent contradiction? Why should the government be so concerned about who plays football while seeming to have so little concern about foreign ownership in this country generally and specifically about such things as Reader's Digest- which in fact is even commended for its fine activities in Canada?
Let me give the House another example of how one who comes from the general area of Toronto finds the priorities

Canadian Professional Football
of this government so odd. Some of us may have heard of the Process Church of the Final Judgment, which is often referred to as the Satanists. As we know, that church had its origin in the United States and its followers decided to come over the border. We did not see any bill rushed through this House to stop them. In fact, we found the reverse; they were able to pick up a LIP grant of $40,093. I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, that most members, like myself, sometimes stroll along the Sparks Street mall. If they do, they may be approached by one of the disciples of the Process Church. I would suggest they ask where they receive their greatest assistance in Canada. If any hon. member speaks to the same disciple that I spoke to, he will be rather startled to hear that it was the federal government that gave them their greatest lift in Canada with a LIP grant.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we have a government that sees nothing wrong with giving grants to a foreign religious cult that wishes to come into Canada, and which on the other hand gets up so tight that it asks the parliament of Canada, in face of all the other problems in this country, to give priority to a bill to decide who should play football.
I noticed that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was hovering around me. He may wish to speak; I am not sure. Now dealing with sports, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interfere with "Boom-Boom Knowles". There is an explosion coming, I understand. In fact, he has even told me to be careful what I say now!


Mitchell William Sharp: We are not worried.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty obvious why we have this bill before us at this time. In addition to the reasons I have mentioned I think this is perhaps a very easy meeting ground for the poor, tired old government that is so rife with indecision.


Mitchell William Sharp: Like the unity of the Conservative Party- tremendous.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What better meeting ground for the left wing of the government, of which presumably the Minister of National Health and Welfare feels he is part, and the right wing of that party, members such as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). Here we have a business proposition and a sports activity blending into one, allowing the right in that party to meet the left and advance something with some type of accord.
Let me be specific. I believe the government should not be giving the priority it is to this bill. We have more serious matters to deal with than a football bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The government must accept full responsibility for what we are debating in this House at any time. If they wish to bring in meaningful legislation or, better still, if they would like to name an opposition day to test the confidence of this House, I will be the first to say let's get on with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Second, I suggest the government has no place trying to regulate professional entertainment, which is all that professional sports is in Canada at the present time. I suggest that likely the bill before us is not constitutional. In this regard I agree with the excellent speech by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). If the government thinks it is constitutional, exactly where do they get the federal power under the British North America Act?
There is a right for people to choose their own form of entertainment. It may be that, contrary to the government's contention, a Bassett knows what people in Toronto want more than a Lalonde from Montreal. It is no accident that CFTO, the television station, is the number one station for viewers in the Toronto area while the CBC ranks number five.
It was suggested-and surely the minister must have been laughing when he said it-that this bill ties in with national unity. I guess he had been watching the TV series "The National Dream". He referred to such things as the building of the railways. If this is the thread holding our country together, I suggest it is a very, very fragile union that we have in this country.
This bill does not do what the minister should be doing, that is helping amateur sport in this country. When I decided to speak on this bill, I spoke with Canadian and American football players who are now active in the Canadian Football League. I now have the firm conviction that the number one thing that is wrong with Canadian football at the present time is that there is not enough assistance to ensure that players right down to the lowest grades are given the opportunity to learn and play the game that is given those in the United States.
Without mentioning his name, one chap who is perhaps one of the leading players with the Toronto Argonauts told me he played the game in the United States from grade six, and that at the present time they have coaches in their public schools encouraging and coaching the American children to play football. That is how to learn the game. That is how we are so eminent in the world of hockey. If we wish to be eminent in football, it would be more practical for the minister to be suggesting that kind of legislation, rather than fretting over who is going to put on a sports spectacular in Toronto.
Although the point has been made, I think it should be made again that the Canadian Football League is not national. Its activity stops at Montreal. We should bear in mind that almost 25 per cent of the Canadian population lives east of Montreal.
I again refer to how somebody in the Toronto area may look at this. For example, my constituency takes in part of the region of York which would like to build a dome stadium. They have proposed a site and have plans to dig. They have not had one iota of encouragement from the federal government to get on with this development. Surely that is an interesting contrast with the $500 million the government has put up for the Olympics in Montreal. Dealing again with the Toronto situation, one of the reasons given by the federal authorities as to why we are not entitled to help for a dome stadium is that it might be used for professional football.
April 22, 1974

I have attempted in the few minutes available to me to touch on what I think are the pertinent points in this bill. I urge members to vote against the bill. I intend to do so. My party intends to do so. I can assure hon. members that given an opportunity, as has been outlined in our policy papers which were approved at our convention, we will bring in more meaningful legislation to help amateur sport in this country and to ensure that resource industry companies and companies in general will be restored in ownership to Canadians.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill, not with the intention of prolonging the debate but to say some things that I think need saying.
This bill has stirred up a great deal of public controversy. Until the mail in this country stopped, this bill accounted for at least 10 of the letters I received a day, and for numerous telegrams and telephone calls both to my office here and my constituency office on the weekend at all times of day. This bill has stirred my people up to a great extent. It has wrought controversy throughout my constituency on both sides of the question. I will go into that controversy later.
This bill is very much like one we had last year in connection with capital punishment. It hits at the roots of people. It attacks the "gut" issues. Members opposite are afraid to talk about it. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) is afraid to talk about it, as is the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario is rising on a question of privilege.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, if it is not asking too much in this House, individual members should behave with a certain degree of responsibility. I certainly am not afraid to speak about this. I have spoken about it across the country. However, I am prepared to vote on it, which is the very function we have in this House.


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


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I should not comment on the activities of other members in this House, but if their mail is anything like mine, and I know it is, they have a duty to their constituents to say where they stand and why they are voting. This is not a clean yes or no issue. It is very complicated. It is an issue that strikes at the very guts of all of us. That is why we have to stand up and speak. That is why every member in this House should stand up. It is why this bill should be set aside until the situation in this country clears up a bit. We should not be talking about this bill at a time when we have an increase of 1 per cent a month inflation. The Post Office is not working-


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, sit down so that we can talk about those things.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The bill should be deferred so that we can consider it dispassionately, so that members can air the feelings of their constituents and explain to their
Canadian Professional Football constituents what the bill is all about. We cannot be expected to vote on a bill without setting out the reasons why we voted and what it is all about. It is imperative that we analyse the feelings of our constituents. That is the least we owe them. They have the right to expect this of us as members of the parliament of Canada. It is not fair for an hon. member to hide behind the curtain, to refuse to speak. He cannot escape his responsibility by not voting or by keeping quiet because some party official or whip has been on his back.


An hon. Member:: At least we are not split on this issue like you are.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is not an easy problem. It is one which raises the whole question of freedom. It is an issue on which members of parliament should stand up and be heard. A government which brings forward a bill of this kind, puts on two speakers and then says "Vote, vote, vote!" is not responding to the needs of the people of Canada as it should be required to respond.
There are two issue here, and they are in conflict. The first is the right of a free people to see what they want to see, to play what they want to play and to hear what they want to hear. The other issue involves the national unity of Canada and the extent to which football unifies the country. And it does unify the country. We cannot forget that there is a big brother south of the border. These are the two issues before the House and they must be spoken about. This is what parliament is for; parliament is a speaking place. Gut issues are before us, yet members say "Vote, vote, vote, vote!" That is no answer to their constituents.
I took a poll in my riding. I do that often through the mailing system we have. The questionnaire asked two questions: Are you in favour of (a) preventing the expansion of American professional football into Canada? To this, 44 per cent of my constituents said, yes, 32 per cent said no, and 23 per cent were undecided. Then I reversed the question. I asked: (b) Are you in favour of allowing American football into Canada? To this question, 39 per cent said yes, 37 per cent said no, and 23 per cent were undecided. As hon. members will appreciate, it is almost a 50-50 issue.
We get opinions in letters and telegrams from people right across the country, people who are worried about the identity of Canada, people who are worried about whether we are creating the kind of country Laurier talked about at the beginning of this century, people who are worried about the freedom of Canadians as individuals to do what they want to do-play a sport, listen to a sport, see a sport. These are gut issues, and that is why the country is divided. That is why members opposite ha"e a duty to speak.
The question is: Do we need legislation to protect the Canadian Football League? When we look at the league we find that 80 per cent of the stars are American. It is rumoured that the ownership of at least one team may be American. It is rumoured that every coach in the league is American. The bill before us permits 45 per cent of the players to be American this year and 40 per cent next year. This is Canadian football and we have to make sure that Canadian football is protected.
1658

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football
This is not a positive bill, a bill which does something for Canadian football. It does nothing for Canadian football at all. This is a piece of legislation which says: If you play in a foreign league, you go to jail for two years. Football is an important national sport, but we must remember that it is only played actively as a professional sport west of the island of Montreal. As I say, it is a unifying sport, but is it so important that the government of Canada should be making rules to control it and not rules with respect to every other professional sport?
Is this a subject which should be looked at now, a time when economic exigencies are threatening the country, or should such consideration be deferred to a more apt occasion? Is it really necessary to make sure that the Northmen are thrown out of Canada on the grounds that if they were not, poor old Canada, and national sport in Canada, would disintegrate? I suggest the raison d'etre of this bill will not stand up to serious examination.
The Toronto market is more than capable of supporting two professional football teams. After all, we have an affluent market of at least four million people and there are already many competing athletic events as well as other cultural activities taking place simultaneously in Toronto. The entry of the Toronto Northmen playing in a foreign league will not mean a thing to the market, any more than if we organized a new soccer team, a new lacrosse team, another hockey team, a professional basketball team, or even more professional tennis stars. This really would not matter because the market is far larger than any which could be satisfied by the Canadian Football League at the present time or in the foreseeable future.
This bill is not really going to do a thing for Canadian unity, but it will deprive the people of the greater Toronto and Ontario area of the right to look at what they want to see when they want to see it, or if they are prepared to pay for the ticket to see it.
When the minister introduced this bill he waxed long about the CPR as the national dream, about the CBC and how the Conservative party was responsible in the original instance for forming that corporation, and he talked about national unity and national identity. He did not mention the penalty of two years in jail when he talked about national unity in relation to these other national things.
What are we talking about here? We are talking about a football team. We are talking about one football team in one city competing in an international league. Perhaps this is just a continental league, but it is a league about which we are talking. What audacity to compare that with activities in Canada such as building a pipeline, a seaway, a railway, a radio network or the unity of this country! As I suggested earlier, that borders on the ridiculous.
This arrangement Mr. Bassett has with the WFL is an arrangement whereby he has the right to operate one team in the World Football League in Canada. He has given the minister the assurance that there will be only one WFL team in Canada. What the minister is suggesting is that the city of Toronto cannot support one football team playing in international competition, and that if that one

football team plays in Toronto the gate receipts of the CFL will be so tremendously damaged that the whole CFL will fall apart and the Grey Cup will be used as an ash can. That is what he is saying. Does that not sound ridiculous when compared with the CBC, the CPR, the trans-Canada pipeline, the Seaway and all those things Canadians have accomplished through good times, bad times, depression and war? He says the CFL will fall apart if we have one team located in Toronto competing in an international league. He says the whole country will fall apart and national unity will be destroyed forever.
What about this international league? When people talk about professional baseball in this country they cheer the Montreal Expos because they play big league baseball in the big leagues. Canadians who are interested in big league baseball like to see the Montreal Expos play in other cities throughout the United States. We have a team playing baseball in international competition, so what would be wrong with our having a team playing football in international competition-and I emphasize, only one team in Canada? The minister says this is going to destroy the country; it will destroy Regina, wipe out Winnipeg and visit disaster upon Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. Such nonsense! Can Canadians not go beyond their borders and win games in New York, Atlanta and other cities in the United States, and perhaps even lose some as well? What is wrong with Canadians going into international competition? The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) spoke earlier about this.
This is the first time the government has said: Thou shalt not enter a league in Canada, competing internationally in any league in another country. That is what this bill is; it is a "Thou shalt not" bill.
Hon. members opposite suggest that we should keep quiet, not speak too often, let this bill come to a vote and pass quickly. They do not want to talk about it because they know in their very heart of hearts that this bill is not right and should not pass.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Show me a Liberal with a heart. I don't know any of them.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The part of this bill that bothers me most is Clause 6. If this was a bill designed to encourage Canadians by providing that any professional football team in Canada must have so many Canadians on its roster and no more than so many foreigners on its coaching or playing staff, I would not be quite so upset. This bill provides that any Canadian who plays for a team playing football in any foreign league in Canada as defined-and it refers to Canadian or American football-will be subject to two years in jail. That is the iniquitous part of this bill. If this bill, following its marvellous preamble, went on to show some method by which growing young Canadians would be encouraged to play football and be given more opportunity, that would be pretty good.
If this bill provided that the CFL must have teams in London, Halifax, Quebec City and Charlottetown, that might be a good thing too. But this bill provides nothing of the kind. This bill confirms the fact that the Canadian Football League is entitled to continue to have at least 15 American players on its roster, providing that is not more than 40 per cent of the authorized playing group. It does
April 22, 1974

not say anything about giving more opportunity to young athletes, and it does nothing to encourage amateur sports in Canada. This is a "Thou shalt not" bill, and this government is used to that kind of bill.
Last session when the matter of foreign control was raised this government produced the foreign control takeover bill, another "Thou shalt not" bill. Every time we on this side of the House suggested that there should be taxing incentives and better arrangements for banking facilities for Canadians to take over Canadian enterprises in Canada, hon. members opposite did not want any part of it.
This is a "Thou shall not" approach to Canadian identity. As a member of this party I say that if we are to build an identity in Canada we will never build it by two years in jail. That is the approach we have had from this government in connection with Canadian identity. We need a positive approach which gives Canadians encouragement to do things, to build Canada. There is no attempt to build Canada in a statute which prohibits and controls, which makes Canadians look inward, which provides that Canadians shall not compete in international competition. That is the nature of this bill and this is the reason it must fail. It does nothing for Canadian identity. It does not build up Canada. It is a two-years-in-jail bill. That the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) should let that pass I am surprised.
Much has been said about whether this bill has constitutional validity. I have said before that I am only a country lawyer and do not know very much about this, but it strikes me that any sport that can be broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation must not be a sport that is criminal in nature. So to ban the playing of that sport as a crime while at the same time allowing the broadcasting of that sport on a national television network owned by the people of Canada must perforce mean either that the government is full of criminals or that the sport is fine. So this bill cannot stand on the basis of the criminal law or the peace, order and good government provision.
Is there likely to be insurrection if this bill should not pass and the Northmen do in fact play? Are we to destroy peace, order and good government if we have football in Canada? Clearly not. There are two members on the government side who are law professors and one on this side, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). I am surprised the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGui-gan) has not stood up in this House and given a legal opinion in this case. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), a former dean of a law school, has not given his legal opinion on the validity of this bill. Clearly the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the hon. member for St. Paul's and a number of others have called into question the validity of this statute.
Surely it is incumbent upon competent people with legal talent on the government benches to say that they really believe concerning the validity of this statute. Yet we have not heard from them. They do not want to speak about it because they are pretty well convinced we are right when we say that, and they do not want to embarrass
Canadian Professional Football the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).
The evidence is that there would be no damage to national unity in Canada as a result of the non-passage of this bill or as a result of the Northmen playing football in Canada. There is no evidence that people will really be injured, that the cities of Regina, Winnipeg and Calgary will fall apart. All we have is suspicion. All we have is an issue which is pretty small, which really does not go to the heart of what this House should be discussing at a time when we have the Post Office and the air line out of commission. This bill should be tabled by this government. It should be brought up again for future debate, but it should be tabled now so the government can get on with the urgent business of running the economy of Canada instead of messing around with football.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, it has been evident all day and all evening not only that the government want this debate truncated but that we know why they want silence. They have much to be silent about. They certainly have a desire to be silent about the way they have bumbled the economy of this country, bumbled the issue of the cost of living and now have bumbled this. But this can be seen in a tragic light when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) gives priority to a bill such as this at a time when there are so many things vital to the future of the Canadian people, so many things on which we would welcome legislation and direction from the minister and his colleagues. However, about these things he and they have been silent.
We wish, for example, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would give us an opportunity to debate with him the present inadequate funding of medical research in this country and the way increases for the Medical Research Council are not even keeping pace with the cost of living.
We wish the minister would give us an opportunity to deliberate upon the inadequate funding of institutions that fight alcohol and drug abuse. The government takes in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from the sale of alcohol, yet provides only a token amount of this for education to combat it. We wish, for example, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, would bring in a program on the subject and challenge of traffic fatalities, which are now threatening 200,000 potential years of lost life annually. We wish there were some presentation from the minister on what could be done to increase government funding for research in respect to heart disease, cancer, mental health problems, aging and many other priority items of the Canadian people. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare gives priority to a bill such as this we must think that he is now becoming the Mr. Bumble of Canadian politics. Here is another example of how this government has bumbled without leadership and direction in so many areas and so many challenges.
Who can believe in a government that produces legislation of this kind at this time? Indeed the only explanation that can be given is that this must be the creation of those so-called strategists who devised such incredible things as the 60 days of decision during the 1963 election and now have conceived this brainchild.
27451-42*

April 22, 1974
Canadian Professional Football
This bill was supposed to arouse political support for the government in the west and was supposed to give direction to the cause of nationalism. This bill has instead aroused an increasing number of Canadians against the government, and I think that is why throughout the afternoon and evening the hecklers, who are the substitutes for speakers on the government side, have been calling for a truncation of this debate. They are on the wrong side of the issue. The debate is embarrassing them, and that is why they want it to end. Ever since 1956 that party have been in favour of closure. Now they are trying to do it again. They want to put through this House a bill without adequate debate.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: This bill is a demonstration of the arrogance of this government. It is a bill introduced by a minister who said in his opening remarks that this is a very real and emotional issue that we as a people care about deeply. But I say, hon. members opposite do not care about it deeply enough to debate it adequately.


Mitchell William Sharp: We want a vote.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Many of them do not care deeply enough about it even to be in the House to debate it.
One reason why an increasing number of Canadians are aroused to oppose the government on this issue is that this bill is striking at what should be the basic personal freedom of every Canadian. There are so few areas of life in which the ordinary citizen has some control left that surely what he does with his spare time should be left to him. This is a free country for all. Surely it is a country in which the ordinary citizen will have at least the freedom to choose what football teams he can look at in his spare time. Yet, we have a government which is saying: "Oh, no, the ordinary citizen, especially the citizen in Toronto, will not have that freedom; it is the government that will decide that." In fact, the government is bringing in legislation that will determine that.
What has amazed me is the way this government, which over the past several months has said that there is absolutely nothing they can do to combat inflation, to regulate the price of housing or to help the ordinary citizen cope with the cost of living, on this issue finds that there is much they can do. On this issue the members of this government certainly have "muscle". They cannot do much about inflation, housing, and so many things that now confront Canadians, but on football, ah, that is where they are really big.
It is clear that this country may have a cabinet, but it does not have a government with a sense of priorities. If the government really had a sense of priorities, the last bill that they would want to bring in now is the one that they have brought before us for this debate. Surely they would have dealt in a realistic way with the problems that truly challenge us today.
I know that throughout the afternoon and evening members of the government have been urging an end to this debate because the debate embarrasses them. But we also know that because of this bill they have lost whatever

shred of confidence the public has in them. While they may, because of their party discipline and because of the alliance they have with the socialists, be able to ram this bill through when a vote is taken, they are certainly on the wrong side of this issue so far as public opinion is concerned, particularly in the Toronto area.
Therefore, in this debate we want to challenge the government to show a greater sense of priorities. They have said: Bring the debate to an end if you do not think it is really a vital issue. But the question I put to them is: If this debate had ended a few hours ago, would they have brought in something to deal with the problem of inflation or to deal with housing? Oh, no, they would simply have brought in some other time filler, which is what this bill has been. They would have brought in some other substitute for legislation, for the inaction that has characterized them.
So we say that if ever there is anything that justifies the lack of public confidence in this government as shown in the public opinion polls, and before long to be apparent at the election polls, it is this kind of masquerade, this kind of burlesque which the government has perpetrated on parliament and the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, before the House makes a decision on the second reading of this quite important bill I would like to take some time to say a word or two on whether or not the government is taking the right step in controlling entertainment. The question is not whether I as a young Canadian-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -believe that football is a sacred sport or whether I as a somewhat handicapped young Canadian should be protected from entering into that game. I do not think that is the question. I do not think we should equate football, which needs greater protection for the young Canadian, with baseball, hockey or soccer. I think that we as Canadians have proven over the past number of years that we are able to participate fully in all major sports, whether it be hockey, soccer, baseball or football.
I was very interested to hear the minister remark that we do not have a professional baseball league. I thought back to the number of baseball games I played and the number of times I asked myself whether some time there could be a professional baseball league that I could break into. Then I thought of the city of Calgary which had attempted to establish a major professional league but failed to draw a sufficient audience to pay the salaries of the members of that league. Then I thought of the baseball tournaments in the province of Saskatchewan. There really are professional baseball tournaments in western Canada today. I thought of the Battleford Beavers, the baseball players that they hire from the United States to play in the Lacombe tournaments. Then I thought of the baseball teams from Moose Jaw, Sceptre and Unity, Saskatchewan, that came to play in the baseball tournaments in Alberta and took away top money.
May I call it ten o'clock?
April 22, 1974



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, on March 19 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to comment on the report of U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim to the U.N. Committee on science and technology a report entitled "Outflow of Trained Personnel from Developing to Developed Countries". This report names Canada as one of the advanced nations benefiting from the migration of highly trained persons from the developing nations.
This problem, known as the brain drain, is of great concern to the United Nations, for the very persons best equipped to build up the poor countries of the world are often the ones who migrate. For example, in the five year period from 1968-1972, 2,178 Filipino nurses came to Canada, 450 doctors from India, 606 teachers from China, Hong Kong, and 1,601 teachers from the West Indies.
It is essential to take a responsible, global view of this problem. I welcome all immigrants to Canada, and I would not in the least interfere with the human right of anyone to migrate. But there are very large implications to this problem. As the Secretary General's report makes clear:
The United States, the United Kingdom and Canada are receiving as a gift from developing nations a large cadre of trained persons whose education was expensive to the developing countries, and who contribute critically important medical services to the populations of the developed countries. It is not possible to arrive at any single figure representing the monetary gain to receiving countries. However, it is clear that the total gain for major receiving countries should be considered as being in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
Consider migrating physicians for a moment. Physicians can secure a higher income by migrating, even though they are on the average at the lower end of the income scale for physicians in the developed countries. The glaring paradox is that they move from countries where the need for their service is acute to countries much better supplied with medical personnel. Stated another way, a few relatively poor developing countries are devoting scarce resources to the costly education of a critically important professional group, many of whom migrate permanently to a few developed countries.
Migration of highly skilled persons is thus correctly perceived by some countries as a serious threat to successful development efforts. In short, many developing nations see large numbers of their trained persons contribute to the steadily growing output of the developed countries at a time when they are desperately needed at home.
All of this, says Dr. Waldheim, raises questions of the "equity. .. and adequacy of the developmental assistance programs of the richer nations." For the brain drain prob-
Adjournment Debate
lem is but a symptom of the much larger problem of development of the developing countries. The vast numbers of talented people in all countries must be encouraged and helped to accept the challenges within their own countries. Solutions to the brain drain problem must be integrated in a renewed perception of international social justice. This integrated approach is essential to the attainment of peace, freedom and justice in the world.
We must ask ourselves if it is socially just for Canada to impose such restrictive immigration regulations as was done last February 21. Under these rules, non-sponsored immigrants to Canada will have to prove their talents are needed before being allowed in the country. By so closely tying immigration to manpower needs, does not the Canadian policy work against the interests of the developing countries in precisely the way Dr. Waldheim protested? Our policy inevitably discriminates against the nonwhite, non-industrialized, non-rich parts of the world, because the general population of these areas is excluded from Canada while the most highly educated are welcome. Thus Canada, like other western, rich countries, skims off those persons most essential to the modernization of their countries. This is what follows from having economic indicators dominate immigration policy.
In the immigration review now under way, Canadians are being asked the key question: "What are our international responsibilities?" Mr. Speaker, I urge the government and indeed all thoughtful Canadians to consider immigration and population policies in the framework of this larger question. The world is changing more rapidly than we can perceive and piecemeal answers are inadequate.
Affluent man has created more wealth than Croesus ever dreamed of, but at the expense of more misery than the world can bear. Hundreds of millions of people living in the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America are caught up in conditions of deprivation that no set of statistics can begin to describe. The rich squabble over butter; the poor cannot even afford fertilizer. It is a scandal beyond belief.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs made an excellent speech before the special session of the United Nations General Assembly on April 11, in which he pledged increased Canadian aid in the areas of the developing world most in need. I congratulate him on that speech and I urge the government to contribute to the forthcoming World Congress on Population with this same large viewpoint. Not population problems alone, not immigration policies alone, not foreign aid and trade policies alone, will help the two billion people in 100 underdeveloped countries of the world, only an integrated policy of world development will meet this massive challenge. We must accept this challenge, and all of us in parliament should help Canada take a role of international leadership in removing the inhuman inequalities which exist today.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) for having raised this issue and for the excellent statement that he has made in support of the question that he asked the other day about the report of the Secretary General.

April 22, 1974
Adjournment Debate
With much of what he said I find myself in agreement, but perhaps I might be permitted to make a few comments that I think will illustrate that the problem is somewhat more complex than can be seen at first glance.
As hon. members are aware, Canadian immigration policy since 1967 has been based on the principles of non-discrimination and respect for the universal declaration of human rights. We recognize the problem for developing nations of the so-called brain drain, but any restrictive action of developed countries against people emigrating from less developed nations would be difficult to implement, as it would be contrary to the spirit of the declaration, specifically article 13, paragraph 2, which states that everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
In our own specific case, it would be contrary to our policy of non-discrimination. However-and this is the first point I would like to make-Canada does not actively promote recruitment of immigrants in developing countries, skilled or otherwise.
In the report referred to by the hon. member, the Secretary General warned against drawing simplistic conclusions about the so-called brain drain because of the many complex factors involved and because of the paucity of information available. A case in point is the fact that developing nations such as Mauritius are encouraging the migration of trained personnel, nurses in this case, due to unemployment. Yet this is considered to be a part of the brain drain.
A major part of the Secretary General's report dealing with reasons for migration focuses on problems of unemployment, under-employment and misemployment of trained personnel in the developing nations themselves. Another example cited in the report is the over-production in the developing countries of engineers with training not related to the needs of the country. So from the report it can be seen that the causes of the brain drain are to some degree inherent in the conditions of the less developed countries. In presenting his remarks tonight, I think the hon. member admitted that this is essentially a problem we are facing.
We have no wish here in Canada, with a very substantial program of development assistance, to undermine the value of our assistance by draining skilled personnel from developing nations. I say to the hon. member that if we were to welcome more people, even if our policy of immigration was less selective, we would not necessarily reduce the brain drain. People who saw an opportunity of coming to Canada to take preferred jobs, where they could get more money or where their training equipped them, would come as well as the others. Therefore, I do not think it is our selective policy that is producing the brain drain.
Like the hon. member, I believe we have a responsibility to try and improve economic and social conditions in the developing countries of the world. This is essentially the way of dealing with this problem, so that there are opportunities for educated people to stay at home and work satisfactorily.


AGRICULTURE-DAIRY POLICY, 1974-75-ASSURANCE THAT PRODUCERS WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced on March 29, 1974 a support and subsidy program for the dairy year 1974-75 and considering that this program does not meet adequately the producers' wishes and needs, I took the first opportunity offered to me, on April 1, to ask him whether he considered seriously that the new policy which guarantees only $8.50 a hundred weight of milk is an adequate response to the dairy producers requests and that it will be such as to invite them to remain in business and invite young people to carry on with this important sector of the farming industry?
Although the Chair considered this question very interesting, it was suggested that I was asking the minister to express a view which normally should be done on motions.
In view of this situation and the urgency of this question, I availed myself of the privilege granted to all hon. members to raise the question again at the time of adj ournment.
Mr. Speaker, when I rose previously concerning this matter both in March and April of this year, I brought the seriousness of the situation to the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and the Cabinet. I dare hope I have clearly substantiated the claims made by industrial milk producers which apply also to whole milk producers. In fact, the costs of chemical fertilizers, farm implements and labour, as well as a number of other factors are about the same for industrial milk producers and whole milk producers.
This is why, as spokesman for both, I wish to work on the improvement of their lots. I am aware that the minister or his parliamentary secretary is likely to reply that the lots of dairy producers has considerably improved over the past few years. I agree on this to a degree, but it must be said that production costs have increased considerably so that in 1974, the difference between production cost and cost price is wider than ever, which means the net income decreases.
The question is not to see whether the improvements brought about by one party have been better than those of some other party, which is of minor interest for the producer. Rather, we must take steps to give to every producer of industrial or whole milk his fair share of the national income. This is the objective we must meet.
Dairy producers clearly stated that the real production cost is more than $10 for 100 pounds, and that to guarantee profitability in this industry, the selling price must of course be higher than the production cost.
That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. During its ninth meeting, held from March 17 to 20, 1974 the Food Prices Review Board studied the problems of the dairy industry and its effects on both producers and consumers.
It stated that there are now serious reasons to worry about the income of a large number of producers in that sector, the present possibilities in the industry, and its

capacity to supply Canadian consumers adequately at reasonable prices.
To study the problems of the dairy industry, the board used a report prepared at its request by Professor MacFar-lane. According to that report, the dairy industry must face the following problems:
a)	the low income of producers and decreasing production in spite of subsidies;
b)	a shortage of qualified labour and producers' difficulties in competing with non-farming job opportunities;
c)	the current high cost of feed grains.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the problems of the dairy producers. It is therefore not surprising that the country should fall short by 7 to 8 per cent in its dairy production and resort to imports to meet the needs of Canadian consumers, to the extent of some 50 to 60 million pounds of butter from January to April 1974, which situation has, to my mind, helped to add to the number of unemployed.
At this rate, we will import even more in coming years. But from where shall we import, since in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the dairy producers are experiencing the same problem? Yet, we have great potential in dairy production in Canada, particularly in Quebec and Ontario.
Recently, a dairy producer in Bellechasse won a prize as the owner of the Holstein cow that produced the most milk in the province of Quebec last year, that is 17,438 pounds of milk with 5.92 fat content. The owner of the cow is Mr. Alfred Boulet of the parish of Saint-Frangois in Bellechasse, Quebec.
I would like to extend my most sincere congratulations to this young farmer and dairy producer who does credit not only to the Quebec dairy producers but to Canada. It is an honour for the member for Bellechasse to mention it in the House.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that we of the Social Credit Party have a very wise suggestion for the House and the Minister of Agriculture which would do justice to the dairy producers and consumers. It is that a discount on dairy products be established by the Canadian government and that the producers be compensated for this discount, which will benefit the Canadian consumer, by new credits created for this purpose by the Bank of Canada which, after all, belongs to the Canadian producers and consumers, and that these new credits be created according to the needs of the consumers and the industry's productive capacity. The producer will then be well paid and unfair advantage will not be taken of the consumer.
Mr. Speaker, this is a concrete suggestion which takes the needs of the consumers and the rights of the producers into account. There is no inflation or deflation involved, only scientific balance. This, Mr. Speaker, is the solution submitted by the Social Credit Party of Canada.
At the present time, our dairy production has a deficit of 7 to 8 per cent because we operate haphazardly. In recent months, we have imported from 50 to 60 million pounds of butter when our production capacity is sufficient to meet our needs.
Adjournment Debate
What are we waiting for to act? The month of April is nearly over and May is coming up. What will then be the answer for June 1974 and the following months? That is the question put by producers and consumers to this government. What will be the answer in the present financial system? But for the Social Credit Party of Canada the real answer based on common sense is in line with the material possibilities of this century.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want at this time to discuss the adequacy of the amount of $10.15 mentioned in the hon. member's question because I feel his inquiry is about whether the incomes by milk producers will be adequate to promote sustained, and even increased, production.
I would like to insist that the price of $8.50 per hundredweight is a goal lower than the price a few producers will be receiving. Several major changes were made in the new dairy policy which will have a positive effect on production.
For example, producers receive the full subsidy of $2.30 per hundredweight for any production within the marketing quota and not only just on the subsidizable quota. The subsidizable quota per producer was increased to 900,000 pounds of milk and additional subsidizable quota is available in cases where two or more producers work as full time partners on a dairy farm. This is in addition to increases of 6 cents and 12 cents a pound in the support price for butter and powdered skim milk respectively.
The minister is quite aware of the need for additional steps to bring renewed confidence to industry. The purpose is to set up a program which will ensure a better cost-receipt balance to the producer while at the same time making that occupation attractive to younger people. For that purpose the Canadian Dairy Commission received terms of reference to consult with producers and other groups concerned to present to the government proposals likely to reach those goals, and work in that direction has already started.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION-REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION INTO INCREASING COST AND EFFECT IN FEEDING INFLATION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, on March 14, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) to consider a royal commission inquiry into the large and growing cost of government administration and the effect that such expenditures have in feeding inflation. He indicated he was prepared to consider my request. Tonight I hope to provide reasons that will encourage him to move further in the direction of an affirmative answer.
I think the time has come to examine the large, sprawling empire of government departments and agencies and to determine whether the existing structure is the most efficient vehicle for serving the Canadian people and identifying the changes required to perfect the system. I suggest we should start at square one and ask ourselves what role government should play in our society and whether

April 22, 1974
Adjournment Debate
we have exceeded that function perhaps to the detriment of higher priorities.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has frankly told this House of the complex and difficult situation he faces. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is the Department of Transport as it is now constituted an adequate vehicle for development and implementation of badly needed new policies to serve this nation? I suggest that we need the best available independent professional advice. This can be provided by a royal commission with broad terms of reference.
While I have the greatest respect for every committee of this House which deals with the estimates and expenditures of government, I believe the time has come to take a giant step forward in examining the total impact of government expenditures and new systems and methods that can streamline our operation and lighten the burden on the Canadian taxpayers. As a corollary to this, I believe we should examine the impact of government spending on the Canadian economy and its relationship to the inflationary spiral.
Since the royal commission on government organization, commonly called the Glassco Commission, reported in 1962 the $61/2 million expenditure of that year has tripled in the 12 year interval to some $22 billion, as shown in the main estimates before us today. In the 12 years since the Glassco Commission reported some outstanding social legislation has been enacted, and federal government assistance to disabled and disadvantaged Canadians has improved immeasurably, both in its quality and amount. Indeed, in respect to disabled people, particularly the blind, and in respect to our senior citizens I find it easy to support the proposals of my colleagues in this House for even more generous treatment.
At the same time I believe we can make some real progress in identifying areas within each department of government which can and should provide a service for other departments of government, and avoid costly duplication, the tremendous expense of hiring outside professional and other services, and consulting with experts outside departments of government.
The total budgeted cost of outside consultants in all departments disclosed in the estimates is approximately $750 million, much more than to total expenditures of any of the maritime provinces. I believe also that the total structure of our government has become so complex and so unwieldy that the lines of authority from the minister to those in the lower echelons are strained to the utmost.
The ability of all departments of government to focus on any one problem in our economy, like that of regional disparity, leaves much to be desired. For example, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has expended millions of dollars in Atlantic Canada with some degree of success in building the economy of that area. As DREE takes one step forward in establishing new industries, the lack of a cohesive and progressive transportation policy erodes its effect. The total amount spent by DREE on incentive grants since its inception is considerably less than the amount projected for the Mirabel Airport alone. The Auditor General's report should not be a once a year
	.
embarrassment to government. The function of this office should be a continuing service of remedial action.
In department after department of government estimated expenditures climb. Current estimates before us now show that justice and administration of our courts has an allocation of $23 million. The RCMP budget will increase by $20 million to $125 million. The Food Prices Review Board budget has risen to $1.9 million, up 90 per cent over the last year. The CBC has increased its budgeted expenditures by 25 per cent to $298.8 million. The Post Office expenditure is up 17 per cent to $689.7 million. The Commissioner of Official Languages budget is up 36 per cent to $1.9 million.
It is imperative that every one of these expenditures receive the closest possible scrutiny, but the time allocated to our House committees to perform this function and the research facilities needed to dig into them are not sufficient to do the best possible job for the Canadian people. I feel that with the tremendous increase in the complexity of government organization since the Glassco Commission of 12 years ago, we need to examine our administrative process in the light of the vast improvements and changes that have taken place in business, accounting, policy auditing and computerization, thus ensuring that the total delivery system of government best serves the challenge- the Canadian people have given us.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) has indicated the desirability of a royal commission investigation or inquiry into government operations with a view to doing really quite a wide ranging number of things. This suggestion is based on the assumption that, because the federal expenditure budget has very largely increased, there must be increases in duplication and inefficiencies. In fact, while total federal government expenditures have increased very largely over the past period, as he has indicated, to some $22 billion this year, if one looks at the estimates it will be found that slightly over 50 per cent of these expenditures are accounted for by transfer payments to provinces which administer programs. These have been the fastest rising of our total expenditures. He did not suggest that the royal commission should inquire into the provincial administration of these programs, but here is a very large area of expenditure.
Second, there have been substantial increases in other kinds of expenditure represented by direct transfers to individuals, such as the substantial increase in family allowance payments, in veterans' pensions and in pensions paid to the aged. All of these account for a substantial increase, but these are not programs where the efficiency of the administration is a substantial item of cost. Indeed, while in 1961 the cost of operations of the federal government, excluding transfers to other levels of government and excluding transfers to people, such as family allowances and old age pensions, accounted for some 10.2 per cent of the gross national product, today this share of the GNP accounting for services to a very largely expanded population in a variety of much more complex issues has declined from 10.2 per cent of the GNP to 8.9 per cent. One hopes that this percentage of the cost of operation, the overhead, will continue to decline. I suggest that this is
April 22, 1974

not evidence that a commission of inquiry of the range and nature that the hon. member suggests is needed.
I might also say in respect to lightening the burden on the taxpayer, which we all desire, that the burden is largely the consequence of legislation passed by the House increasing transfer payments to the provinces, the administration of these large social programs, and transfer payments to individuals, such as family allowances. This is where the increase in the taxpayer load has occurred.
There is just one specific item more that I would like to comment upon and then I will sit down, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman mentioned that parliamentary committees do not have the time to look into these expenditures, and that in particular the cost of outside consultants has risen to $750 million. It is rather curious that the hon. gentleman should be proposing the seeking of advice from outside consultants because we cannot solve our own problems
Adjournment Debate
and at the same time complaining about this advice being sought. I should point out that in the $750 million, the largest single item is the payment made to the provinces for vocational training instruction rendered at federal government expense to the citizens of provinces.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would like to point out to the hon. member that under the adjournment procedure there is no possibility to rise on a point of order. Should he have an important question to raise, I suggest he does so at the beginning of the sitting tomorrow afternoon.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Tuesday, April 23, 1974