1975-07-08

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-57, to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Turner moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had some things to say about this bill on second reading. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was unavoidably absent from the House, I emphasized at that time that this arrangement, which deals solely with equalization of shared tax revenues with the provinces, is an improvised and quite arbitrary arrangement. The most important provision in the bill deals with the equalization as it relates to revenues derived by provinces from petroleum sources. The bill provides in general terms that the revenues the petroleum producing provinces derive up to the old price before the world price started to take off would be considered provincial revenue for the purpose of equalization, but that the revenue derived by the petroleum producing provinces from petroleum priced above that level would not be considered provincial revenue for the purpose of equalization.
One can readily see that this is an entirely improvised and entirely arbitrary arrangement, because revenue that a province derives as a result of the higher price of oil is just as much provincial revenue as revenue derived by a province from a lower price of oil. If one believes, as I said on second reading, that the higher price of petroleum products is a temporary phenomenon then there might be some justification, if not in principle, for this bill. But the bill cannot be justified in terms of principle; it can be justified only in terms of being a practical arrangement put forward by the government to meet a particular difficulty, the difficulty being the amount of expenditure the federal government would have to make to the less wealthy provinces if the revenue received by the oil-producing provinces from the higher price of oil were considered provincial revenue for purposes of equalization.
[DOT] (ino)
I, therefore, understand why the government puts forward some such proposal as this. I would point out, however, that not only is this arrangement purely arbitrary in the sense that it is not based on any principle, but it also represents a very sharp reversal of position by the federal government. Years ago when I used to attend federal-provincial conferences as a provincial premier, the then Premier of Alberta, Mr. Manning, used to argue that the revenues the province of Alberta received from its petroleum resources should not all be considered provincial revenue for the purpose of equalization. He used to make this argument time after time, but he never got a shred of sympathy or anything else from the then minister of finance who, I think, is now government House leader and who appears to be very happy in his position, which is completely different from the one he used to take as the minister of finance.
I know it is late in the day at third reading to suggest to the government that it might go back and consider a more fundamental and more-satisfactory approach to petroleum revenues for equalization purposes than this sort of patched-up and wired-together kind of position which will really not stand any critical analysis in terms of principle. It is purely improvisation, purely arbitrary. I repeat here this morning that the federal government, in my judgment, would be wise to reconsider with the provinces the whole question of provincial revenue from petroleum and other natural resources in terms of the equalization question in order to try to develop and adhere to some kind of consistent principle that can be maintained, because what we have here now is quite arbitrary. I say this not simply to be a stickler in terms of principle, but perhaps I might repeat what I said so well at second reading stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of this being such a complete reversal of position by the federal government on petroleum revenues in connection with equalization, I said then:
I do not know just what confidence the Minister of Finance in Canada can have today that any provincial treasurer or any provincial minister of finance is really going to take seriously any conceptual argument put forward by the Government of Canada. I do not know how a minister of finance of Canada can expect a provincial treasurer to have anything but skepticism at best, and cynicism at worst, about any conceptual argument put forward on behalf of the Government of Canada-
I went on to mention some instances. Now, since the second reading of this bill when I said I was not going to object to the bill going to committee-in fact I indicated I was not prepared to oppose the bill, by implication at least-we have had the statement in the budget address of the Minister of Finance relating to hospital care and medicare, and the arbitrary unilateral position of limits on

July 8, 1975
Oil and Gas
federal spending, limits on the proportion of the costs of medicare that this government is prepared to accept. I suggest that this has created an entirely new context for the consideration of this bill relating to equalization.
The government received some kind of general acceptance from most of the provinces with regard to the formula in this bill. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) at second reading stage how many provinces had registered opposition to the formula in the bill now before us, and he said he did not think any had been opposed in any formal sense, in writing, but he was not sure of that. Certainly, I do not think one could say there was approval by the provinces of this formula, but there was acceptance by most provinces. I believe that the premier of my own province, Premier Regan, objected to any departure from the equalization formula, which principle includes all provincial revenues, and this bill clearly represents a departure from that principle.
I had been of the impression also that the premier of Saskatchewan had been bitterly opposed to the formula in this bill, and to the departure by the federal government from some of the assurances that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave the oil producing provinces a year or so ago. My impression was that the government of Saskatchewan felt it had been double-crossed. It had believed, with justification it seems to me, that it had been assured that any petroleum revenues it might receive would not be considered provincial revenue in the hands of the government of Saskatchewan if it were put into a capital fund.
Now, of course, the government has changed the rules. My understanding is that the government of Saskatchewan, as I said, feels that it has been doubled-crossed and it cannot count upon assurances given by this government. But now, in addition to any double-crossing that may have taken place, now that we have the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and other great ministers across the way, having met during the past number of months with the provinces and discussed with them the equalization formula, we have the Minister of Finance suddenly rising in the House, with the full approval of his colleagues, and announcing that beginning in the next fiscal year the federal government will impose arbitrary limits on the percentage the federal government contributes to the medicare program.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say to the Minister of Finance through you, Sir, that I am sure there was no talk about the government of Canada reducing its proportion of the cost of medicare, no talk about the federal government giving notice to the provinces that it was going to terminate the hospital plan. I am sure there was no talk about any of these matters when the Minister of Finance was discussing the equalization formula with the provinces. What the government proposes with regard to medicare, the unilateral ceilings which the Minister of Finance proposes, which amount in effect to a reduction of the proportion of the cost of these plans that this government would be prepared to bear, will bear very heavily on all the provinces, the well to do as well as the not-so-well to do. The government imposed the medicare plan and the hospital 
plan in the current form and I say that the government must deal fairly and equitably with all the provinces, the wealthy and the less wealthy.
This bill now before us deals only with equalization. It deals, therefore, only with the revenue of the less wealthy provinces. They are going to be struck a savage blow by what the government is proposing with regard to reducing its share of the cost of medicare. They will not have the resources to make up this loss. If one took the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) seriously, one would get the impression that it is very easy for the provinces to reduce substantially and significantly the rate of escalation of the cost of medicare and the cost of the hospital plan. If it is so easy to do it, why have the provinces not done it? They have a very significant incentive to do it now because they pay roughly 50 per cent of the cost of medicare and the cost of the hospital plan. They have a very powerful incentive now to operate these plans as economically as they can.
As one who has had some experience at the provincial level in trying to control costs of these plans once they are put into operation, I want to tell the House that there is only one practical way in which the rate of escalation of the cost of these programs can be reduced, and that is by changing the plans. I say that the provinces have a very substantial inducement now to control those costs, a very substantial incentive, since they bear 50 per cent of the cost. I believe they are trying earnestly to control the costs, and for the Minister of Finance to unilaterally announce that the Government of Canada is, in effect, reducing its proportion of the cost of medicare and terminating the hospital plan is something which will bear particularly heavily on the less wealthy provinces, although it will bear heavily on all the provinces.
We have before us a measure relating to equalization, an arbitrary variation of the equalization formula, designed to get the government over a particular problem. This was discussed with the provinces on the assumption that the shared-cost plans in the field of health were mutual agreements which would be varied significantly only by mutual agreement and that they would be modified only by mutual agreement. We have had a long history of doubletalk and double dealing by this government, to be very blunt about it.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Doublecross.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will not go back over the whole history, but we had a change following the deal fixing oil prices in the spring of 1974. The federal government immediately changed the ground rules relating to the deductibility of royalties paid to the provinces in respect of natural resources. The federal government has a long history of smart dealing and corner-cutting with the provinces. Indeed, we have reached the point where some think it is now only a question of what the government can get away with, but I say that this does enormous and irreparable damage to our country and to the whole area of federal-provincial arrangements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 8, 1975


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I understand that before too long we will have another opportunity to discuss the position taken by the government with respect to the financing of medicare arrangements, and I do not propose to say more about that this morning. When this bill was before the House on second reading, I said I would let it go, but I must say that in view of the unilateral action taken by the government on shared-cost programs since this bill was before the House on second reading, I think we need a full review of the tax-sharing and equalization arrangements between the federal government and the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As far as I am concerned, I have had a bellyful of this government going before the provinces, making a deal and then a few weeks later or a few months later taking some action unilaterally which amounts to a doublecross.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As far as I am concerned, I have had a bellyful of the government putting certain propositions before this House on certain assumptions, and then when it seems to have approval, changing the very foundation of the whole arrangement by unilateral action on its side of the arrangement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We have had enough of this. It is going to destroy the country and undermine any confidence the provinces could have in any dealings they have with this government. It is not right. We need a full review of tax sharing arrangements and equalization arrangements, and as far as I am concerned, I cannot support the bill. I will not force a vote, but I will certainly not vote for the bill on third reading.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of the minister, who seems to be seeking the floor at this time, that by the rule of this House the fact that he did move the motion he is considered as having spoken, and the only way he can speak at this time is by unanimous consent. I would be ready to recognize him at this time if the House agrees. Does the House consent to the minister contributing at this time?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there may well be others who want to speak with respect to this bill, and I presume that the minister rising at this time does not close the debate, if he is to have that kind of consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the point just raised by the hon. member, there is no right to reply on third reading. This is extended only to second reading debate. So if the minister speaks, he does not close anything. He just participates in the debate.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak, but since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has, out of courtesy to him I thought I
Oil and Gas
would reply to some of the arguments he made both on second reading and then again this morning.
First, the reason this bill proposes to exclude some of the additional oil and gas revenues from equalization really is to retain the credibility of the equalization principle with the country and the people of Canada as one which is fiscally manageable. I said during public debate and in correspondence and negotiations with the provinces, that if the additional revenues from oil and gas were not excluded to some extent from this current legislation, the additional revenues from the Canadian taxpayer would be in the neighbourhood of $2 billion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) put the question to me at second reading, and we have furnished the information, according to my parliamentary secretary, on those additional revenues or costs. The hon. gentleman may not be satisfied, but we have given him a full review of what those extra costs to the Canadian taxpayer would have been. Those costs would have been in the neighbourhood of $2 billion had we not moved to exclude some of the additional revenues from the equalization formula.
It ought to be recalled that these additional revenues accrued to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, not because of anything inherent in the cost structure of producing oil and gas in Canada, but because of the effects upon Canada of the quadrupling of oil prices, provoked by the practices of the OPEC cartel. I want to say to you, Sir, that equalization was never intended to cover the type of revenue explosion which occurred as a result of the international oil disturbance. Full equalization of the additional oil and gas revenue would have been very costly, as I have outlined to the House, and would have required an increase in federal taxes. Furthermore, the revenue needs of the seven provinces which received equalization in order to equalize public services and the ability of the provinces to provide public services, have not substantially increased by reason of the international oil disturbance. In other words, there is really no justification for the additional revenues going into the equalization formula because provincial needs have not automatically increased as a result of extraneous international oil prices.
I have stated publicly as early as January, 1974 that the inclusion of all oil and gas revenues in equalization would necessitate a restructuring of the entire equalization formula, if it were to remain fiscally manageable and credible with the people of Canada. As I have stated, it would be preferable to seek a solution in terms of shielding the then existing 1973-74 equalization system from the effects of the international oil disturbance.
This, Your Honour, is what Bill C-57 does for a period of three years. During this time the federal government, in consultation with the provinces, will have an opportunity to give careful consideration to the possibility of devising a new system. I might say that I have had great faith in the equalization formula and in the principle of equalization to render equal across the country the ability of the provinces to provide public services to the citizens of Canada.

July 8, 1975
Oil and Gas
Since I became Minister of Finance, the equalization payments have risen from roughly $1 billion to $2 billion this year. That is a doubling of equalization payments in a period of three fiscal years. That is just not as a result of the burgeoning provincial revenues, particularly of the sales tax in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta which has increased the revenue base. Some of the increase derives from conscious decisions to add some additional oil revenues, one-third in this bill, and increasing the base for equalization by adding municipal taxes for school purposes to the formula.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked me what the prospect was of future negotiations with the provinces for a continuation of the statute, and of the equalization formula, after the expiry of the current arrangement which terminates on March 31, 1977. It seems clear that undoubtedly the formula will have to be reviewed. This appears desirable partly because of the anticipated problems created by the international oil disturbance and partly because of a review which I believe is necessary of the entire provincial revenue picture.
Here is what I said on December 9 and 10 in a statement to the provincial ministers of finance and provincial treasurers. Since the hon. Leader of the Opposition quoted himself I hope that I can put on the record what I said to my colleagues at that time:
I would also like to say that I am conscious of the need to begin looking at the equalization arrangements for the 1977-1982 period. As you know, the present program expires on March 31, 1977. There is no doubt in my mind that this program must be renewed. It is customary for the federal government and the provinces to sit down together and examine the program in order to consider any improvements which may be needed. A review will be particularly useful prior to 1977 in view of the recent, and totally unanticipated, disruption brought about by the international oil disturbance.
While equalization is a federal program and we must assume responsibility for it, I am very anxious to have the views of the provinces concerning any long-term changes which should be made in it. I would hope that the necessary steps to get such a review under way could be undertaken some time within the next few months. I would, therefore, suggest that this matter be referred to the continuing committee of officials with instructions to proceed with a review and to report progress at our next meeting.
That is being done, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the special case of the province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is in a unique position in the sense that it is a receiving province under the equalization formula. It is also a province in receipt of oil and, to a much lesser extent, gas revenues. If there had been no adjustment made at all, Saskatchewan would have lost under the equalization formula by reason of the additional oil revenues-and to quite a considerable extent-just as would be the case if in the province of Nova Scotia oil were to be brought in in marketable quantities off the coast within provincial jurisdiction. Until the amount of $200 million per year in royalties was reached, the effect on the equalization formula would be negative so far as Nova Scotia was concerned.
The federal proposal of March, 1974 to the provinces was to exclude from equalization any oil revenues that were sequestered by producing provinces to non-budgetary capital funds for energy development. The result was to put Saskatchewan in a protected position so that the entire amount of additional oil and gas revenues would
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).J
not be brought into the formula to the detriment of that province.
At the time the proposal was made, the federal government understood that Alberta would sequester about 65 per cent of its additional revenue from oil to the capital fund, that Saskatchewan would sequester 100 per cent and the other producing provinces would not sequester anything. The federal expectation having regard to the relative percentage of oil revenues as among Alberta, Saskatchewan and the other provinces was that, over all, about two-thirds of additional oil revenues of the producing provinces would be sequestered and hence excluded from equalization.
Accordingly, the principal provision of Bill C-57 before the House adopts that principle-that is to say, the exclusion of the additional oil revenues of the producing provinces in the ratio of two-thirds to one-third. That, Mr. Speaker, gives approximately the same result for all the provinces as the proposal I made to the provincial ministers of finance and the provincial treasurers one year ago.
Bill C-57 does, however, differ in two significant respects from the proposal to exclude sequestered oil revenues which I made in March, 1974. First, it applies to revenues from natural gas as well as to revenues from oil. Revenues from natural gas were not discussed by first ministers in March of 1974 as the talk at that time related only to oil. The second difference is that Bill C-57 provides for the reclassification of oil and gas revenues into six revenue sources in lieu of four as at present, and for changing the treatment of remittances from oil and gas enterprises. These further changes have had the effect of enlarging equalization by approximately $33 million as of 1974-75, of which $26 million goes to the province of Saskatchewan. The substantial benefits to Saskatchewan arise from the recognition of freehold oil and gas as separate revenue sources.
Now, why did I exclude the original proposal of sequestration or setting into capital accounts? The original proposal to exclude sequestered revenues from equalization was dropped for a number of reasons. Principal among these was uncertainty as to how it would work out. As of last November when the government's new proposal was announced, Alberta-the principal producing province- had made no public announcement as to the establishment of a capital fund. They now have the heritage fund. We had no commitment from Alberta, nor should we have had as to what percentage of its oil revenues or additional oil revenues would go into that capital fund. While such a fund was finally announced by Alberta in April of this year, the legislation to establish it has not yet been brought forward and there are still uncertainties about certain aspects of the proposal, such as the purposes for which the sequestered revenues will be used.
Had we really depended upon provincial action to set aside or characterize revenues as capital or revenue, the whole equalization formula would have depended really upon unilateral provincial action as to how a province would characterize or qualify those amounts. In any event, this bill removes these uncertainties in so far as equalization is concerned. I believe this is desirable, both for the federal government and the equalization receiving provinces. Those provinces need to be able to budget on the
July 8, 1975

amount of equalization against a fixed and firm formula and not against a formula which would depend from time to time on how producing provinces would qualify or characterize their revenues, either as capital or as revenue.
Getting back particularly to Saskatchewan, the effects of Bill C-57 on Saskatchewan are beneficial. The bill benefits the province because it excludes two-thirds of additional oil revenue from equalization and because it reclassifies oil and gas revenues with new revenue sources being established for freehold oil and freehold gas. This bill does reduce Saskatchewan equalization because it also excludes two-thirds of additional gas revenues from equalization. The latter affects all equalization receiving provinces, however, in approximately the same way. The estimated effects of Bill C-57 on Saskatchewan in 1974-75 are these: there is to be the exclusion of additional oil revenues and certain adjustments from the formula, and the result will be a positive figure of $68 million. In other words, without this bill Saskatchewan would be $68 million poorer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It will be poorer in any event.


John Napier Turner: No, Sir. If this bill were not in force, or if an adjustment of the original proposal were not in force, Saskatchewan would be penalized, because additional revenues from oil would cancel out and set off equalization of approximately $70 million.
Having dealt with these questions I now want to deal with some things the Leader of the Opposition said about hospitalization, health costs in general, and medicare. The federal government has tried for five years-certainly I, during my three and a half year term as Minister of Finance, have tried-to work out formulas for putting some reasonable cap on the escalating costs of postsecondary education, hospitalization and medicare. We proposed a number of formulas, including incentives to provinces to switch into more efficient, less costly methods of medical service delivery. We think this can be done with the use of home clinics, the use of clinical supervision as opposed to acute hospital treatment for every type of malady, the use of paramedical services when they can be safely used instead of the services of doctors, and so on. We must co-operate with the provinces to contain the escalation of health costs within to the growth of the economy as a whole.
In recent years this country's health-care costs have grown at rates well above the rate of growth of the economy. We think that without reducing in any way universal, complete hospital and medical services to Canadians-the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will again be making that undertaking when the appropriate bill comes before the House-without derogating from the principle of complete, all-embracing medical and hospital services, there are more efficient and less costly ways of delivering those services to the people of Canada.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) today repeated what he said to the provincial ministers of finance and what he said when he introduced this bill. What he said at the end
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).]
Oil and Gas
shows that he completely ignores the views of all provinces. They all think that some of his budget proposals torpedo the general concept of equitable cost-sharing between the federal government and the provinces. Every provincial government, whether of a Liberal, Conservative or NDP hue, opposes the federal government's abandoning a principle it has followed for many years, a principle under which Ottawa pays 50 per cent of hospitalization and medical care costs. The provinces suspect, justifiably, that Ottawa will soon refuse to pay 50 per cent of Canada Assistance Plan costs. The minister said clearly that soon it will not pay for half the cost of post-secondary education. The minister is proposing to reduce Ottawa's share of these programs by hundreds of millions of dollars. That is how much Ottawa will save when the cutbacks become effective.
Remember, federal governments urged the implementation of these programs, beginning in 1945, when the Mackenzie King Liberal government published the green paper on health services. Since then the governments of Mr. King, of Mr. St. Laurent, of Mr. Pearson, and even of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), urged provinces to extend services in fields of health, social security and post-secondary education. The federal government forced these programs on the provinces against their will. It promised to pay them 50 per cent of the cost, if they entered.
Now, the Minister of Finance has torpedoed the possibilities of co-operation between the provinces and the federal government.
Let me read what Premier William Davis thinks of all this. This morning's Globe and Mail carries this report on the front page:
'Federalism, in its present practice, has become a one-way street,' Premier William Davis told a news conference... 'The government of Ontario cannot stand idly by while the government of Canada plucks the Ontario taxpayers and consumers in order to feather its own nest'...
According to the Globe and Mail, Ontario served notice that it will not enter into any more share-cost programs with Ottawa. That announcement is hardly surprising, as the provinces are swallowing a bitter pill.
The Quebec Minister of Social Affairs who is responsible for health services is dismayed by the Minister of Finance's proposal and realizes that Ottawa's 50 per cent contribution to health and hospitalization costs will soon end. That Liberal minister sent the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) the following telegram:
I deplore the unilateral setting of a ceiling without notice of federal participation in medical insurance-The evolution of medical care cannot be carried out in such a short time-span and this federal decision causes major uncertainties in its administration by the provinces.
Ending his speech, the Minister of Finance said that Ottawa is confident we can enjoy the same level of health services if we use more efficiently present facilities, use paramedical people instead of doctors, and so on. Judging from those remarks, one would think that Ottawa is making these proposals and the provinces do not agree, that they are only too willing to spend money on the most expensive form of medical health care. What nonsense. Would any province do this? Would poor provinces like Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and

July 8, 1975
Oil and Gas
New Brunswick, provinces which already find it difficult to pay their 50 per cent share of health care costs, spend money wastefully? Do they not want to reduce their costs, even more than the federal government does? Now, it will be difficult for them to co-operate with Ottawa. What can they do to moderate the rapid rise of their health care costs? Ottawa is saying to them, "We are limiting our spending in this field. If you cannot reduce your spending, you must carry the extra burden yourselves."
The Manitoba health minister's position was exactly the same as that of the minister in Quebec. He sent the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare a telegram, which reads:
Needless to say, your government's decision to proceed with major financing changes on a unilateral basis is a serious disappointment to our province and, I assume, to most others-all of whom in good faith have been devoting a great deal of staff, time and effort to the joint study of cost-saving alternatives. Not only does the decision represent an apparent breach of our earlier understanding but also, and more importantly, it suggests that your government has every intention of implementing legislative changes which will cause the primary financial responsibility for the future reform of health care and for the maintenance of existing service standards to be borne by the provincial governments and their taxpayers. Given the recognized limits of provincial budgetary capacities, it is obvious that such a decision would represent a significant threat to our national health standards-standards based on a system which the federal government itself initiated."
I will come back to that in a moment. However, we must keep in mind that the province of Saskatchewan implemented a universal hospital insurance plan which covered every citizen in that province on its own. After that, the federal government brought in legislation to the effect that Ottawa would pay 50 per cent of the cost of a hospitalization plan in any province with a universal plan.
There were many provinces, such as my province of Manitoba and Ontario, which had voluntary plans such as Blue Cross. A large percentage of the people in those provinces were at least partially covered by hospital insurance. I remember the former premier of Manitoba, Mr. Roblin-I was a member of the legislature at that time- saying to Ottawa that that province did not want a universal plan. He said they had a good plan and all they wanted Ottawa to do was help pay the cost of insuring those people who could not afford the voluntary plan. The province of Ontario made the same statement. Ottawa said, you cannot get any money from us unless you have a universal plan. Those provinces were dragged, kicking and screaming, into the universal plan. I approved of Ottawa's approach at that time, but having dragged the provinces into universal hospitalization, it now says: sorry, we are not going to continue to pay 50 per cent of the cost.
Exactly the same thing happened in the field of medical insurance. The province of Saskatchewan, under a CCF government, brought in a universal plan which they financed. Following a study by Mr. Justice Hall, who was appointed head of a commission to look into the whole matter of health care by the former Conservative government, the recommendation was essentially to endorse what Saskatchewan had done and recommended the same kind of plan for the whole of Canada. Ottawa again passed legislation to the effect that the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the cost of medical insurance, providing it was a universal plan.

I can remember the Conservative government of Ontario opposing that scheme brought forward by a Liberal government in Ottawa. They said they did not need this plan because voluntary plans covered most of the people in that province. Ontario wanted Ottawa to share in the cost of insuring those people who did not belong to the voluntary plans which were doing such a good job. Again Ottawa said, nothing doing; either come into the universal plan or these tens of millions of dollars you could get with a universal plan will not be available to the people of Ontario. Therefore, the Ontario Conservative government was forced to accept Ottawa's proposal, again on the basis of 50 cents of every dollar of cost being paid for by the federal government. What did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) do in his budget speech the other night? He torpedoed that plan. What we have now is the most reactionary government this country has had in over 30 years. That is a real statement of fact as to where we are at the present time.
Let us look at what the effects of proposals of the Minister of Finance will bring when they are implemented. In 1971, the Department of National Health and Welfare proposed a new arrangement for sharing hospital and medicare expenditures. Basically, the proposal was that the federal contribution be based on the amount payable in a base year and be increased on percentage changes in the gross national product on a per capita basis. A joint study by the provinces showed that most would experience a serious shortfall in revenues under this proposal and subsequent modifications. In a few moments I will give some illustrations how at least two provinces will be affected by the minister's proposals. Even though British Columbia would have received more money under this scheme, it, too, rejected it on the grounds that it would destroy national health standards.
At the January 1975 meeting of health ministers, no agreement on a new cost-sharing plan was reached. However, the federal government agreed to the establishment of a committee to study the inclusion of other health services like home care, presently not included under cost-sharing. It should be obvious to anyone, even Liberal backbenchers who jeer at any concrete proposal if it is not made by a cabinet minister, that home care is a lot more economical than hospital care which now costs between $75 and $100 a day. A meeting on this subject was supposed to have been held this month.
At present, the provincial governments are carrying about $1.5 billion in programs not included under cost sharing. This is expected to increase to about $119 million annually by 1978-79 and to be supplemented by another $800 million annually in new programs developed between now and 1978. The position of the provinces is that both levels of government should share equally the cost of all health services and all risks associated with rising health expenditures.


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member a question. Does he know what proportion of those health programs not covered by medicare are being paid 50 per cent at least by the federal government?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a good many figures. Whether they will answer the hon. member's question, I
July 8, 1975

do not know. However, if, when I have finished, I have in the opinion of the hon. member distorted the facts, I invite him to take part in the debate and put the facts on record. Every time a member over there speaks in the way the member for Welland apparently intends to speak, he drives another nail into the coffin of Mr. Robert Nixon's hopes of becoming premier of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: I would be happy to hear the hon. member make a speech. Although Quebec and Ontario are in favour of tax transfers, rather than cost-sharing, they too support the inclusion of a greater range of services if cost-sharing continues.
In his budget, the Minister of Finance gave the required five-year notice to terminate the existing agreement with the provinces on the funding of hospital insurance and diagnostic services. This notice places pressure on the provinces to agree to a new cost-sharing formula. The proposed ceilings on the federal government's contribution to medicare costs are inadequate as far as the provinces are concerned. The federal government estimates that medicare costs will increase in the current year by 16.6 per cent, and it hopes to keep next year's increase down to about 14.5 per cent. After taking inflation into account, that does not leave much room for improvements in services, about which the Minister of Finance talked today and about which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) talked eloquently on many occasions.
Just prior to 1974, the government released a paper on the health of Canadians, calling for a much greater emphasis on preventive medicine. In order to reduce our dependence on high cost acute-care hospitals we shall need to provide a wider range of lower cost preventive services including, for example, pharmacare, the use of paramedical staff instead of high-priced doctors and relatively high-priced registered nurses, denticare and so on. It is unrealistic to place severe restrictions on the expansion of medicare services while at the same time calling, as Ottawa does, for improvements in the health of Canadians.
Again, the finance minister's approach to medical services demonstrates his tendency to abdicate responsibility wherever possible. In this case he is proposing to leave increased medical costs and responsibilities to be dealt with by the provinces. The same applies to the cost of hospital care. The provinces are supposed to maintain a high level of services despite severe cutbacks in federal funding or, as is more likely, to continue to pick up a greater and greater share of the tab while the federal government goes ahead throwing good dollars after bad in one mad corporate giveaway after another.
One hon. member opposite asked me for some figures relative to Ottawa's share of the cost. Let me tell him what would happen in the Province of Manitoba and in the Province of Ontario, part of which he is supposed to represent. As I said, the provinces have resisted the desire of the federal government to put a lid on open-ended cost sharing of universal programs, programs which the federal
Oil and Gas
government itself instituted. Ottawa has suggested new formulas involving basing its contributions on a scale tied to a five-year moving average increase in the gross national product. This proposal was rejected for obvious reasons by all the provinces.
What will be the effect of this new proposal by the federal government? Under the present cost-sharing arrangements, Ottawa supposedly pays half the national per capita cost of medicare. Hospital insurance is more complicated. There, the formula calls for 25 per cent of the cost in the particular province plus 25 per cent of the national per capita cost. Thus, the formula means different things to different provinces. Wealthy provinces such as Ontario, which offer more extensive health care than the national average, have not received the benefit of 50-50 cost sharing. On the other hand, the poorer provinces, such as Newfoundland, finance a large percentage of their health programs through federal contributions.
What happens in my own province? Manitoba, which sits precisely in the middle when it comes to almost all national measurements, has been receiving exactly half its cost of hospital and medical insurance. Officials of the Manitoba department of finance calculate, on the basis of very rough projections, that the arbitrary ceilings imposed on future medicare contributions-13 per cent in 1976, 10.5 per cent in 1977 and 8.5 per cent in 1978 and thereafter- will begin to hurt Manitoba by 1980. By 1985, the deficit to be picked up by the provincial treasury will amount to between $40 million and $50 million in terms of medicare alone. By that year, it is projected, the deficit will be running at about $15 million annually. This does not include the impact of a similar arbitrary formula expected to apply to the much more costly hospital insurance program beginning in 1980. Here, the actual cost to the province would be at least another $15 million annually. These are very conservative projections.
Medicare costs have been rising on an average between 9 and 10 per cent in the last several years. The increase in hospital costs has been much steeper-between 1970 and 1974 they rose from $90 million to $157 million while in the same period medicare costs showed a more modest increase from $52.5 million to $58.4 million. The provinces are now faced, however, with difficult negotiations with the doctors, and medicare costs will undoubtedly increase very substantially. I notice that the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) is leaving just when I am about to put on record the effect of the government's proposals according to the hon. member's own provincial treasurer- how much they are likely to cost the people of Ontario.
This is what the Ontario provincial treasurer has to say about these proposals, this package, which, as I have said, if approved, will make the present government the most reactionary government Canada has seen in almost 50 years. This is what the Ontario provincial treasurer has to say about them:
Provincial priorities are distorted by the availability of federal dollars ... Capricious changes in policy by the federal government leave the provinces stranded to carry the burden of programs which were often imposed upon them in the first place ... Unilateral imposition of arbitrary ceilings on the rate of growth of federal contributions is unreasonable ... Provincial administrative structures are interfered with ... Rigidly defined criteria for eligibility result in inequities, feuds and distortions. Administrative costs are unnecessarily high.

July 8, 1975
Oil and Gas
Then, he goes on to make some predictions. He says:
Only six months after a task force had been established, the federal government abruptly announced in its June, 1975 budget that it was going to impose arbitrary ceilings on the rate of growth of its medicare contributions. With allowance for population growth, the ceilings are 14.5 per cent in 1976-77, 12 per cent in 1977-78 and 10 per cent in years thereafter.
Ontario projects that its medicare costs for the corresponding years will grow by 23 per cent, 21 per cent and 19 per cent respectively. In dollar terms, the federal ceilings are expected to cost Ontario more than $200 million in lost sharing before 1980.
And who is going to make up these amounts? The people of Ontario in increased provincial taxation or through some kind of deterrent fees. Then, the minister goes on to say:
When the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was introduced in 1957, it provided for sharing on a fairly wide base. Since that time, the provinces have introduced many new services which have been judged by Ottawa to be non-sharable. In Ontario, these nonshared programs account for 23 per cent of the total health care package.
Here we come to the real figures.
The major non-shared programs, with their 1975-76 costs, are: psychiatric services ($195 million), nursing home care ($123 million), drug benefits ($35 million), insurance related to optometry, osteopathy, podiatry, and chiropody ($33 million), ambulance services ($31 million) and home care ($13 million).
Those kinds of services were supposed to be discussed with the federal government by the joint committee. Ways to reduce the rapid increase in costs every year were to be studied by the joint committee. The provinces are just as interested in reducing the rate of increase as the federal government. After all, they are paying more than 50 per cent of the cost of health services and they want to put a limit on the cost if they can. They are interested in all of the things the Minister of National Health and Welfare talked about and which the Minister of Finance spent about two minutes talking about today.
However, Mr. Speaker, they cannot do this with a gun held to their heads or if Ottawa announces unilaterally limits on the amount it will pay. Therefore, it is not surprising, as I said at the beginning, that all ten provinces are telling Ottawa that the proposals the Minister of Finance has made regarding putting a lid on Ottawa's contributions to the shared-cost programs, which I emphasize again were in the main implemented at the demand of federal Liberal governments, are unacceptable.
In conclusion, the minister's budget speech and the bills that will come before this parliament as a result of the proposals made in his budget speech have completely transformed the whole question of federal-provincial costsharing. We are now in a different ball game than we were when this bill was introduced and debated on second reading. All of the provinces reject the proposals made by the federal government. The people of Canada are unhappy with the proposals. This being the situation, we intend to oppose this bill and the other bills which will be brought forward to implement what the minsiter enunciated in his budget speech. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

That Bill C-57 be not now read the third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put on the amendment just moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I should like in a few words to support very strongly the position he has taken. Bill C-57 may deal with only one major aspect of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, but the fact is that the whole scene as between Ottawa and the provinces has been changed, and changed radically, by the statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget speech or June 23. It is because of this total change in the picture that we think this bill, even though it has had second reading and committee stage consideration, should not be passed at this time but should be looked at in the light of the broad question of federal-provincial fiscal relations.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made this same point very clearly and forcefully in his speech this morning. He indicated that he had not taken a strong stand against this bill on second reading but that things have changed since that time and that the bill has to be looked at again. Not only is there the situation created by the statements made by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech on June 23, but there is the situation created by the mini-budget that was presented in the Ontario legislature yesterday and the threats, if I may call them that, made by Premier Davis of Ontario.
I am not happy about the threats Premier Davis is making, but they are prompted by a situation in which the whole ball game has been changed. Premier Davis' threat to take Ontario out of all shared-cost programs only underlines what the Minister of Finance in the federal government is doing in making things very difficult for the provinces.
As my colleague for Winnipeg North has pointed out, for several decades Liberal governments in this country shouted loudly about their desire for national unity and about their desire to implement that unity by creating certain standards that would be of the same level right across the country. I do not think at this stage of the game it is out of place for me to relate a private conversation I remember very well with the late Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent which took place in London, England, when we were both in that city for the first session of the general assembly of the United Nations in 1946. I remember his words to me, namely that the federal government could not allow the different viewpoints of the provinces to prevent the federal government from pushing ahead with its program for national standards, particularly in the fields of health and social security.
The background to this, of course, was the Rowell-Sirois experience in which many politicians and parties in this country committed themselves to the idea of one Canada. This meant more than words; it meant national standards particularly in the fields of health and social security. Those standards have been built up through such programs as Old Age Security, the Canada Pension Plan and other legislation in the pension field, and they have been strengthened very effectively by our hospitalization and medical care legislation which have been based roughly on the principle of Ottawa paying half the cost. I say "rough-
July 8, 1975

ly" because I am aware of the complications of the formulas.
For the federal government, having proposed these improvements and dragged the provinces into them, now to have served notice that the whole concept is going to be changed is-I think my hon. friend for Winnipeg North used the proper word-a case of torpedoing what the very party opposite presumably worked for for several decades. It is a case of turning the clock back.
What the Minister of Finance did on the night of June 23 when he gave the notice about the five year run out of the hospitalization program, and then gave notice of a bill to amend the Medical Care Act, first reading of which I understand is being called this afternoon, were acts which turned the clock back. The Minister of Finance tries to say in this House that none of these measures will interfere with universal hospitalization and medical care, that none will interfere with our effort to maintain high standards in these areas. The fact is that the cost of maintaining these standards will be shifted from the federal treasury, which is the one most nearly based on the principle of ability to pay right across the country, either to the provinces in their entirety or to some other basis the details of which we do not yet know.
I submit that there will be a very real risk of greatly increasing what hospital and medical services will cost not just the provinces rather than Ottawa but the people of this country, particularly the people in the provinces that are less wealthy than others. Therefore, we say that with the prospect ahead of us of a complete change in how hospital and medical care services are to be financed, with the whole question of what will be done with equalization of the revenues of the various governments in this country, this House ought to go slowly on a bill of this kind. We had some questions about it at second reading, but those questions have been underlined and heightened by the announcement made by the Minister of Finance on June 23. We are not prepared to see the gains won in the hospital and medical care field torpedoed by a government which wants to solve its immediate financial problems by taking this regressive step. Therefore, we think this bill should not be passed at this time and that is why we propose that the House should give it a six months' hoist.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Olympic Financing


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment negatived on division.
Motion (Mr. Orlikow) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the main motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. Jean Marchand (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-53, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, No. 2, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Marchand, Langelier (for Mr. Lang) moved that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-63, to amend the Olympic (1976) Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Motion No. 1, motion No. 2 and motion No. 4 appear to be acceptable from a procedural point of view. It may be desirable that motions No. 1 and No. 2 be grouped for purposes of debate, but if a division is demanded, each could be voted upon separately. Motion No. 4 might be debated and voted upon separately, if so required.
Motion No. 3 appears to be an amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights; therefore is irrelevant to the present bill the purpose of which is stated in the recommendation of the Crown as follows:
-the present measure to amend the Olympic (1976) Act to authorize the issue of gold Olympic coins and to determine the selling price of the gold on the basis of the market price.
May's eighteenth edition, at page 508, reads:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill.
A like proscription is to be found in citation 406 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, as follows:
Amendments are out of order, if they are irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope-
That is with reference to motion No. 3. Is it agreed that motions No. 1 and No. 2 be grouped for purposes of debate?

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is improper to have motion No. 1 and motion No. 2 considered in the same debate. I say that because motion No. 1 deals with the question of what shall be the gold content of the $100 gold coins which the bill contemplates the Olympic organization shall be permitted to mint. To put it another way, it is anticipated that there will be
500,000	to one million gold coins minted which will have an Olympic type of design. They will essentially have all the characteristics of a gold coin. However, our argument will be based on the fact that two-sevenths of these gold coins will contain half an ounce of gold, while five-sevenths will contain only one-quarter of an ounce of gold. That is what we are dealing with in motion No. 1. We, in effect, state it is wrong, first of all, to have one coin with two weights of gold within it and, second, that in any event the amount of gold in the coins should be spelled out clearly in the legislation.
Motion No. 2 deals with an entirely different problem, which is the price of the gold which may be transferred from the Bank of Canada to the Mint on behalf of the Olympic committee in respect of these coins. So basically we are talking about two entirely different questions, one being the amount of gold in the coins-that is motion No. 1-and the second being the price to be set by the Minister of Finance with respect to the gold that might be transferred from the Bank of Canada to the Olympic organization for minting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It was merely a suggestion of the Chair that motions Nos. 1 and 2 be grouped together for purposes of debate, but there will certainly be no insistence on that point. The Chair has heard the argument of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and is quite agreeable to having motions Nos. 1 and 2 debated separately and, if there is a division on them, that they be voted upon separately.
I would ascertain at this time from the House whether we might proceed with motions Nos. 1 and 2, then with motion No. 4, and then come back to motion No. 3. The Chair has indicated that there may be some procedural difficulty with regard to motion No. 3, and I would be prepared to hear arguments on that point if we could first dispose of motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point for clarification. Your Honour indicated we would deal with motions Nos. 1 and 2. Will we deal with them separately, have a debate on each one and a vote on each one?


Walter David Baker: The votes will be deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: That is agreed, I understand. We are dealing with motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Motion No. 1.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).)
That Bill C-63, an act to amend the Olympic (1976) Act, be amended in clause 1 by striking out .line 16 on page 1 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"date 1976: and, with respect to each such gold coin, prescribe that the standard weight shall be one quarter of an ounce troy weight of gold, the millesimal fineness shall be 916, and the remedy allowance and the least current weight shall be such as are appropriate to that standard weight".
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this amendment I feel it may be wise to touch upon, I hope fairly briefly, the sad history of the federal government's relationship with respect to the financing of the Olympic Games in Montreal. This is the third parliament in which the federal government has waffled and has been deceitful. In any event, it had arranged substantial financing on behalf of the Olympic Games organizers in Montreal. Before I go too much further I should like to make it clear, as I did in the last parliament, that we in this party believe the Olympic Games should be supported. We have no objections to the federal government assisting the Olympic Games, but we do have strenuous objection to the deceitful way in which the government persists in helping these games.
In the last parliament I pointed out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had repeatedly indicated, going back to 1968, that the federal government in no way would become involved in the financing of the Olympic Games. In fact, we find even today that the government insists that they will not cover any deficit that might arise with respect to the Olympic Games in 1976. How strange for a government to be maintaining the argument that they are not financing the games, and they will not cover a deficit, when the facts are that, naturally, there will be no deficit if the federal government contributes more and more money to assist in financing the games. It is like suggesting that a water pail will never be empty, and that if it does become empty you will not put any water into it, but failing to point out that in the meantime you intend to keep putting water into the pail.
When the original Olympics bill was introduced in 1973, it was anticipated that through self-financing, as the government chooses to call this type of legislation and program, the federal government would grant $292 million for the Olympic Games. At that time it was anticipated that $250 million would be the net revenue to be turned over to the games from the silver coins program and that $10 million would be turned over from the stamps program. It was also estimated that about $32 million would be turned over as a result of the lottery.
In fact, at the committee meetings held last Thursday and Friday, the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) made it clear that the government anticipates that they will be able to raise that kind of financing for the Olympics and they will meet their target of $292 million. The Postmaster General made it clear that they will not meet the target with respect to revenue in the mix which they originally anticipated. The revenue from the coins will be much less, whereas the lottery has been much more profitable than originally anticipated. But if you forget the mix, the minister said extremely clearly in committee that the government anticipate they will raise the full $292 million which was the original federal government commitment in 1973 with respect to the so-called self-financing program.
July 8, 1975

This is where the matter is interesting. We find that of the $292 million only about $100 million is likely to be the revenue from the silver coins. In theory, that leaves a deficit, in the originally anticipated revenue of $250 million, of about $150 million. My amendment is designed to facilitate the coins program in the sense that if the bill is passed it will be possible for COJO to have a gold coin sold in addition to the silver coins that have been sold to date.
The point I would like to make, because I believe it is important that the members of the House understand it, is that if this whole program is successful, if the silver coins program is more successful than now anticipated and if in fact we sell $250 million worth of coins, it will mean that instead of the games receiving self-financing, as arranged by the federal government, of $292 million, they will receive $292 million plus $150 million, or $442 million of financial assistance from the federal government in the self-help program.
In addition, in committee it was revealed that the total cost of the security and related services, such as CBC coverage of the games, will be approximately $140 million. If we add this all up it means that $582 million will be contributed directly or indirectly as a result of federal government efforts with respect to the games. I believe it is important that hon. members understand this clearly. It may not be much money to the Postmaster General, but I can assure the House it is a great deal of money so far as the Conservative caucus is concerned.
I reiterate that we are not opposed to assistance to the Olympic Games as such, but we believe that if the federal government is going to give that type of assistance, which is extremely important, it ought to be done in an aboveboard, open and wholesome way, and not through deceptive tactics whereby the government on the one hand is denying that it is giving any assistance and on the other hand it is so obviously giving assistance.
I have not touched upon some of the matters which transpired at committee stage with respect to the bill which is now before us. As we know, the bill was first introduced on June 17. It came up on June 26 in committee and by June 27, after a six-hour committee meeting, it was reported back to this House. During that period-and certainly at second reading-we indicated that we wanted the bill to go to committee and we hoped there would be intensive review of the provisions of the bill in committee, but that in no way did we wish to delay the bill just for the sake of delaying it. That is still our position. But unfortunately we found the committee was structured with 11 Liberal members out of a total of twenty and those 11 Liberal members insisted on ramrodding this bill through the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee without proper consideration being given to many of its provisions.
Strangely enough, during our questioning in the committee we found that not only did the government propose that a new $100 gold coin be issued, but the suggestion was that the $100 gold coin should be issued with the same design. It will have "1976" stamped on it, but there are to be two weights of gold in the coin. One coin is to contain a half-ounce of gold, while the other will contain a quarter of an ounce. They will both have a face value of $100. The
Olympic Financing
testimony of Mr. Page, the director of the marketing program for these coins, was to the effect that the quarter-ounce, or the cheap gold coin, was to sell at $110, and then it was stated it was to sell at $115. It was never very clear what the final figure would be. But the good gold coin, the one with half an ounce of gold in it, would sell for substantially more-from $150 to as high as $240.
We believe it is very unfortunate that the Government of Canada would consider having its name appear on coins of the realm yet the amount of gold in coins of the same appearance would be different. Yesterday gold was selling in London at $162 per ounce. In effect, the government is proposing that a gold coin with a face value of $100 will be minted; however, according to the Postmaster General, in five-sevenths of the mintage the amount of gold in those coins having a face value of $100 will be slightly over $40, but in the good gold coins there will be approximately $80 worth of gold.
In checking with authorities yesterday, I was surprised to find out that if Canada proceeds with the minting of this type of gold coin we will be the first industrialized nation in the world to have issued a gold coin in which the amount of gold is substantially less than the face value of the coin.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When the British sovereign was issued, when the double eagle gold coin was issued in the United States, and whenever other coins have been issued in other jurisdictions we have found that the gold content has equalled the face value of the coins at the date of issue. In fact, at the present time we find that perhaps the most widely sought after gold coin in the world is the South African kruger rand. The kruger rand contains exactly one ounce of gold. It trades at the current price of gold on the London market, with a slight premium.
I think it is clear that the government is proposing quite an unusual step. I think it is doubly clear that it is a most unusual step not only to have in these coins less gold than the face value but to have a different amount of gold in the coins over-all. Again, checking with authorities yesterday I learned one would have to go back to before the middle 1800s to find a nation which had a coin in circulation with the same face value but containing a different amount of gold in relation to its face value.
We are disturbed about this proposal because we believe it will be open to fraud and misrepresentation. People will be unfairly dealt with if there are two $100 gold coins minted and one has much less gold in it than the other. That, then, brings us to the problem, what do we do about it? In committee during questioning I understood initially that the Postmaster General had no objection to stating right in the legislation the amount of gold that would be in the coinage. At one point in committee the Postmaster General asked what more we wanted.
In discussion I think it was made clear that if we brought in an amendment to give effect to making clear in the legislation-for example, as the Currency and Exchange Act now makes it clear with respect to the minting of a $20 gold coin-the amount of gold that will be contained in these coins, the minister would have no objection to that type of amendment. Strangely enough, in

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing
the committee the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) spoke up and said that perhaps the Postmaster General had no objection, but as a committee member the hon. member himself had great objection. The hon. member stated that he would oppose any such amendment because he felt that, to use his language, the amount of gold that was to go into these $100 gold coins was absolutely immaterial. As far as the hon. member was concerned- this is all on the committee record-he felt we were only delaying the bill and that the quicker we passed it in its existing form the better. I think that is unfortunate, because the reputation and the integrity of Canada is at stake. There is no way that we, as a prominent nation of the world, should be placed in a kind of banana republic status by issuing coinage that will be frowned upon in every country of the world.
After realizing the spirit of the Liberal members in the committee, we felt it was futile to introduce an amendment at that stage, but after consideration we proposed the amendment which is set out in motion No. 1, which does two things: it first states what will be the amount of gold in all the coinage that is to be issued. We are suggesting that the gold should be one-quarter of an ounce troy weight and it should have a fineness of 916. I emphasize, we are suggesting that the coinage should have the minister's minimum amount of gold in it, one-quarter ounce. We do not believe that he should be putting a half-ounce of gold into the coinage, because that is surely where misrepresentation will take place, having $100 gold coins with two different amounts of gold in them. We are saying that, in the first place, whatever coinage is issued it must have in it a quarter-ounce of gold of 916 fineness. Second, and as a necessary implication of our amendment, no halfounce gold coins will be issued.
When speaking about this matter to friends yesterday, I found the general feeling was that the gold coin with the quarter-ounce of gold in it probably would not sell well at $115, and if any of these coins were to sell it would be the half-ounce coin purely on the gold content basis. If that is the case, I hope the minister will give us the benefit of his views before the debate on motion No. 1 is concluded. We would like to see a successful gold coin issue if that is the government's way of helping to finance the Olympics. We are not up-tight on the quarter-ounce. If the minister feels it should be one-third of an ounce, or one-half of an ounce in all coinage, he should so indicate and we would be willing to amend motion No. 1.
The point I want to emphasize is that we think the coinage, if it is to be issued with a $100 face value, must have the same amount of gold in all of it. The public should not be left open to the sharp practice of having access to two types of coins which appear to be one. At committee it was suggested that the Olympic committee was doing little with respect to the gold coinage, different from what they had done with the silver coinage. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. The silver coinage has one standard amount of silver content; every $10 coin contains exactly the same amount of silver. Why should the same procedure not be followed with the gold coinage program?
I hope hon. members will enter this debate and support our amendment which I believe will clear up a lot of

uncertainty and, hopefully, make the gold coins program more successful than it has been to date. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that I hope to be speaking on other motions that will come before us. If this bill reaches third reading today, however, I should like to reserve most of my comments concerning the deceptive tactics of the government with regard to the Olympic program.
At committee stage the minister tried to indicate that there was great urgency about the passage of this bill and it should have been passed by July 1. When we asked him to be specific about the urgency, he stated that basically there were three reasons: first, they had to buy the machinery to mint the coins; second, had to design the coins; and third, they had to get slugs or blanks. He thought that all this might take up to six or seven months. Questioning of the officials who appeared before the committee revealed that the so-called urgency was largely in the minister's mind. On June 6 the Mint placed an order for the machinery, and it is anticipated that if all goes well it will be delivered by the end of November. In any event, they do not intend to produce these coins until between December or the spring of next year. Preliminary arrangements have been made for design, and as far as the blanks are concerned they need not hold up debate on this bill.
I suggest that the true reason for the urgency was given in this morning's Montreal Gazette which says that COJO plans to appear tomorrow before the Quebec legislature committee on the Olympics. Apparently it has agreed, for the first time, to state the current operating revenues and expenditures and the anticipated revenue figures for the Olympic Games. The Gazette states that the deficit will become apparent then. The reporter also wrote that the mayor of Montreal hoped this bill would be passed before they had to go before the committee in Quebec City. Are we correct in assuming that is the urgency in getting this bill passed, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As a threetime parole violator who was charged once with rape and whose parole has twice been revoked is now being sought because he allegedly murdered a Vancouver woman while
July 8, 1975

he was on day parole, and as this man, incredibly, was to appear in court on another charge while he was on parole, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the Solicitor General order an immediate and full public inquiry into the operations of the National Parole Board, with particular reference to the board's apparent flagrant disregard for the safety of members of the public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL CARE-MOTION UNDER S.O.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion dealing with a matter of urgent importance. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House urges the government to cancer its five year notice to the provinces respecting the agreements under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, and that a federal-provincial conference on hospitalization and medical care be convened at an early date without a pre-established position being determined by the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to discuss immediately a matter of great importance and urgency.
As the federal government has just announced additional expenditures of several million dollars to ensure greater mobility to the Canadian labour force because of the present imbalance between the number of workers looking for work in some parts of the country and the number of jobs available in others and as the present situation helps maintain a high level of unemployment, while slowing down the economy because of the lack a shortage of manpower in certain industries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
Members' Dress
That the House of Commons be allowed to discuss immediately the urgent need for a greater use of the staff already working for Information Canada with a view to better informing Canadians in search of work about the various job opportunities across the country, by giving them all the information pertaining to such things as job conditions, geographic and social data, moving facilities, etc., in order to achieve better balance between demand and offer in that sector.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. JOHANNESS WITTEVEEN, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in your gallery of a very distinguished visitor, Johannes Witteveen, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. NAJMABADI, IRANIAN MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AND MINES
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in your gallery this afternoon of the very distinguished leader of the Iranian delegation to the Canada-Iran Joint Economic Commission, His Excellency, the Minister of Industry and Mines, Mr. Najmabadi.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED CHANGE IN RULES GOVERNING MEN'S APPAREL-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I do so particularly in view of the fact that this is International Women's Year and the weather is so hot. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais):
That male members of this House be treated with equality to female members and be allowed to remove their jackets and ties and that the same apply to the galleries. It is time this double standard stopped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 8, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires, as I indicated on an earlier motion by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), that the matter to be debated must be of urgent and pressing necessity. While it may be a matter of interest and concern, I hardly think it qualifies under that rule.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In less than a month we have witnessed three incidents involving prison employees being held hostage by inmates. Despite the fact that the first drama ended in the death of one employee the government appears to ignore the need for increased security in our federal prisons. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That the Solicitor General order an immediate full public inquiry into the security, control and administration of federal penitentiaries.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed under Standing Order 43 and therefore requires unanimous consent before it can be put. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs arising out of his admission that it will now be virtually impossible to achieve the target of some 210,000 housing starts this year. Can the minister tell the House what short term impact he sees from the shortfall in terms of housing prices and rents?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: The degree of shortfall would largely be determined by the response to the recent infusion of funds amounting to $200 million as a result of the budget and the enrichment of the subsidy program-the program which has now been copied by the government of Ontario. There are increases in housing costs but the exact effect of the shortfall is still to be determined. We are placing great emphasis upon rental accommodation where the greater shortage exists and we hope our efforts will help moderate rents across the country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Minister of State, who concedes there will be a shortfall, whether he has caused a study to be conducted as to the effect of this shortfall on levels of rents and housing prices so that the government may be in a position to determine how urgent it is to take measures to prevent such a shortfall from taking place?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Certainly, we acknowledge that any shortfall places an additional strain on the market; that is why it has been the policy of the government to increase supply wherever possible. This is being done at a greater rate than ever before in history, though we are facing the fact that governments alone cannot do the entire job. Nevertheless, the government's contribution to housing starts this year is greater than at any year in our history except, perhaps, for 1970. Until the private market responds we cannot determine the net effect of current economic conditions on the housing market.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Now that it is clear to the minister, particularly following the release of the June figures, that he will fall short of his stated goal of 210,000 housing starts this year, may I ask whether he intends to announce any new policies to fight the consequent disastrous inflationary effects of this shortfall? Or, on the other hand, is he content to sit back and leave it to the provinces to do the best they can in the circumstances?


Barnett Jerome Danson: We do not see any disastrous consequences. Compared to that of other nations, our performance is much better. This is a problem we share with all the world; it is one we do not welcome, but it is one which we are attacking by means of a great infusion of funds through the Minister of Finance, and by a call to the private sector to invest more money in the housing mortgage market, money which we are ready to subsidize.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has publicly expressed doubt that the measures in the budget will significantly stimulate housing construction, and in view of the fact that the housing crisis has arisen partly as a result of artificially high domestic interest rates, will the minister now quit hiding behind the governor of the Bank of Canada and tell the House the nature of the government's monetary policy as it affects housing and foreign exchange rates?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to review the housing picture as it develops in view of the infusion of budgetary funds. As my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs indicated, we have increased the budget of CMHC by 20 per cent, to $1,200 million. The total amount of money in play is already $1,600 million and we are counting on a strong private sector response. There has already been a considerable commitment by the financial institutions of
July 8, 1975

this country, and when the draw down by the builders begins I think the hon. lady will see some results. In the current economic cycle, I feel that the budgetary response was the appropriate one.


POSSIBILITY OF FISCAL MEASURES TO STIMULATE APARTMENT CONSTRUCTION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously there is some difference of view between the Minister of Finance and the minister of urban affairs as to what this infusion of funds will contribute. Given the crucial shortage of apartment units and the continuing decline in starts in this area, and given CMHC's own admission that developers in many parts of the country benefit more from investing in Canada savings bonds than in apartment construction, is the minister prepared to introduce specific fiscal measures to stimulate apartment construction and thus head off the impending catastrophe in rental accommodation predicted for next year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there was already in the budget, and in previous measures, a good deal of stimulus given to rental units. The hon. lady ought not to suggest there is any conflict between my colleague and myself because he is a tremendous advocate for the housing sector in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: And I suppose you are a great finance minister, John.


John Napier Turner: Thank you. My responsibility is to recognize priorities and to reconcile them with other initiatives taken by the government in a way which is within the economic capacity of this country.


HOUSING
Flora Isabel MacDonald: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the remark of the Minister of Finance I wonder whether the minister of urban affairs is now prepared to give the House a revised projection of starts for 1975, particularly in view of the fact that the minister has never been backward in citing statistics when he felt that they were favourable.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, that is only because most statistics have been favourable. I do not think I would like to make a specific projection at this time because the budgetary measures, particularly the enrichment of the subsidy to the interest program, have not had an opportunity to take effect. We still consider the figure of 210,000 the net replacement figure. As I said before, it is good to keep our sights aimed as high as possible. If there is a shortfall we will suffer that with some regret in a very tough economic
Oral Questions
situation, but we are going to do all in our power to make sure that we get to the root of the problem.


FINANCE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the drive of the government of Ontario to get tax transfer arrangements in place of not being in cost-sharing programs may lead this country to a game of brinkmanship over medicare and hospitalization in which the people of the smaller provinces will all suffer, is the minister prepared to reconsider his unilateral position and convene a conference of the provinces to have a fresh, open discussion of the whole question of how to finance hospitalization and medical care?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the hon. member back to the House after what must have been an unendurably long weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I should like to say to him that we have had a series of federal-provincial conferences on the financing of hospitalization, medical care and post-secondary education programs. The recent move by the province of Ontario recalls an initiative my colleague, now the House leader and then the Minister of Finance, made to the provinces in 1964-1966 whereby tax points were offered the provinces in return for their undertaking to finance certain programs, and we regret at that time Ontario was one of the first provinces to turn it down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the indication from most of the provinces that they would like to find ways and means to curtail the rising cost of health and medical care, will the minister not reconsider discussing the whole matter with them before he imposes his unilateral limits.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, whether or not we can accept the hon. gentleman's view as to timing, obviously discussion will be needed in the general area of cost-sharing programs in order to arrive at some mutually acceptable way to keep the rising expenses within the growth of the economy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the admission by the minister that discussions will be necessary, will he not make those discussions real by withdrawing his unilateral dictum.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the discussions have been real over a period of at least five years.

July 8, 1975
Oral Questions


MANPOWER
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question.
The federal government has just stated its intent to allocate a few million dollars for a program whose object is to allow greater manpower mobility in Canada, and I commend them for it. Could the minister tell the House whether he intends to make a better use of the personnel of Information Canada for providing more efficient information to Canadians in search of a job, to indicate to them the areas in the country where there is greater need for manpower and to provide them with all the relevant information?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would review the comments I made in the House last Friday when I specifically referred to the need for greater information and the method to provide that I think he would get the answer to the question.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary.
Last Friday, I listened with a great deal of attention and interest to the speech made by the minister and that is the reason for my question. I greatly deplore the fact that manpower centres do not adequately inform our labour force, especially in Quebec or in eastern Canada, that the present rate of unemployment is 16 per cent. Can the minister tell us whether the manpower centres staff will be better informed or prepared so as to ensure greater manpower mobility towards the western part of our country?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in a nutshell I think they are well informed now but I am always glad to have them better informed.


FINANCE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up on the question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the Minister of Finance. In view of the proposals made by the Ontario treasurer yesterday and the unanimous opinion of all provincial governments that if the Minister of Finance's financial proposals are as presented in the budget that medical and health care services in this country will rapidly deteriorate, will not the minister fulfil his obligation and renegotiate a medical care package with the provinces in good faith, since it was the federal authority that

unilaterally imposed the cost parameters on the provinces in the first place?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we share a joint responsibility with the provinces to ensure that Canadians receive the best universal, all embracing medical and hospitalization services on the most efficient cost basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We were negotiating to that effect over the past five years at least, and we look forward to continuing those negotiations now that we have set a new beginning.


William Heward Grafftey: Since during the debate in the 1960's even those who agreed with the principle of medicare warned this government about imposing cost parameters unilaterally, does the minister not agree that it is the federal authority which should live up to its obligations and lead the negotiations with the provinces now before the medical and health services deteriorate?


John Napier Turner: In our negotiations with the provinces we expressed the view to them that there were certain rigidities in the current federal legislation which may have impeded the movement toward less costly but still all embracing services, in the sense of moving from acute hospital care treatment to clinical and home treatment, as well as toward using paramedical services to a greater extent than is permitted under present legislation. We look forward to co-operating with the provinces in achieving this result.


INQUIRY WHETHER PROVINCES AGREED TO PROPOSED CHANGE IN SHARING OF MEDICARE COSTS
Mr. Paul Yewch.uk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether he can indicate to the House whether any of the provinces had agreed to his proposals concerning the health hospital act and medicare changes prior to the budget?


John Napier Turner: I have not received any direct communication from any of the provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't worry, you will.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can state to the House whether he is satisfied that CEMA has its supply-management problems in order and if he can satisfy the House that the charge made by the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board to the effect that the import
July 8, 1975

controls on eggs cannot be justified and that insufficient information was given to the public is without foundation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen what the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board has said and I am not in a position to comment on what she said, but I am reasonably satisfied that there is proper supply-management being put in place at the present time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, is the minister satisfied that the latest move, of which we were informed in the statement which he rather contemptuously made outside the House on Friday, thus denying parliament a chance to respond, regarding the present closing of the border with the United States will not in fact touch off a costly trade war which could have the effect of further increasing the price of food in Canada because there is already evidence of this in the United States Congress, in the event that we do close the border with the United States?


Eugene Whelan: I said both inside and outside the House that we have followed the proper procedure under our agreements with our trading partners. If someone takes another position, I would like to know his reasons because I think we do have answers for this. I would point out also to the hon. member that we have no supply-management for pork and the price for pork is the highest in the history of our country and in the history of the United States because of lack of supply.


James Aloysius McGrath: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of difficulties with the U.S. government with regard to restrictions on beef imports, and in view of the fact that suggestions have already been made that countervailing measures will be taken by the U.S. Congress-we have that on the word of Senator Kennedy-does the minister intend to go to Washington to discuss this matter with his U.S. counterpart with a view to off-setting any countervailing U.S. measures?


Eugene Whelan: I would think that if Senator Kennedy did say that, he should have considered the embargoes they have placed on pork because we cannot ship it to the U.S. at present. It might even make our situation worse if we could ship more pork to the United States. Our officials went to Washington to discuss the total program we are proposing, and so far as I am concerned nothing contrary to any agreement with our trading partners has been done. What we are doing is very fair.


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF IMPORT CONTROLS ON EGGS AND EXPORT OF BEEF AND PORK TO UNITED STATES- SUGGESTION MINISTER MEET WITH UNITED STATES OFFICIALS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from the minister's answer that the imposition of import controls on eggs will in no way impair his bargaining power with the United States with respect to our ability to move beef and pork into that market?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, at the present time prices for beef and pork in
Oral Questions
Canada and in the United States are similar. I can say that our counterparts, with whom we are talking in the United States, have taken a realistic attitude toward our proposals concerning beef trade, pork trade and veal trade with that country, and we should be able to announce something in the very near future in this regard.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Does the minister intend to meet with the United States officials very soon to see that this matter is resolved in an equitable manner, so that the future of the Canadian beef and pork industry will not be impaired, and so that we will know what the future has in store?


Eugene Whelan: I can only say that trade and economic advisors told me that the price of beef would never be over $45 per hundredweight during the month of May. It has averaged closer to $51 per hundredweight. There has been no impairment to the prices we have received for beef, and with the tremendous grazing in western Canada, there is no distressed position among our beef producers at the present time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister has obviously ignored the question. I asked him a very simple question. It should qualify for a straightforward answer. Will he meet with his U.S. counterparts to discuss this very important matter which has been confronting us for a number of months?


Eugene Whelan: Top officials in both trade and commerce and external affairs are meeting, and until they request ministerial authority to meet with their U.S. counterparts-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are you going to meet with them?


Eugene Whelan: There is no indication that it has been necessary. I did meet with them in April, and we agreed to follow this procedure. Until this procedure breaks down we will not meet with them, but if it is necessary I will meet with them.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Monique Begin (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Considering that the minister has deemed it necessary to make use of his discretionary powers in favour of Indian women over 60 years of age residing in Caugh-nawaga who, because of their marriage to white men, had been ordered out of the reservation, does he intend to extend his discretionary powers to other Indian women who are the victims of the same injustice and, in the negative, why not?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter I have discussed on several occasions recently with Chief

July 8, 1975
Oral Questions
Kirby, and I have stressed my very strong concern to him on this matter. On the other hand, with the state of the law as it now exists and with the prerogative which exists for that band, I do not see how I can interfere other than to make representations to the chief and the council.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Am I to understand that these discretionary powers of the minister only apply to women 60 years of age or over?


J. Judd Buchanan: Neither younger nor older.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he could not advance the legislation setting up the human rights commission so that the situation outlined by the hon. member and many other anomolies could be brought to an end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the minister's admission yesterday that it would be virtually impossible for Canada to meet his target of 210,000 housing starts for this year, and in view of the fact that the private sector of our economy has demonstrated that it cannot do its job in this field, has the minister any new proposals with regard to what the public sector can do?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there certainly were elements in the budget, and even prior to the budget, which made it possible for the private sector and lenders to participate competitively in the mortgage market, and it is in their best interest to help this cause. We are encouraging them, as is the Minister of Finance, to designate as much money as they can for housing mortgages. The president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been in touch with the heads of lending institutions, and I am in the process of contacting them once more to try to encourage their activity in the mortgage field.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that the figure of
210,000	housing starts was a goal set by the minister- despite the fact that many people and organizations interested in housing said that objective was too low-and in view of the fact that we are not meeting it, and since the

provinces are virtually unanimous in their view that with the present interest rates for mortgages and the amount of money available we will, not reach the goal, will the minister and the head of CMHC give further consideration, in view of the failure of the private sector, to bring forward plans so that the public sector can meet the shortfall which the minister now admits exists.


Barnett Jerome Danson: The 210,000 was hardly a target. It is a figure we set as a minimum to maintain our existing standard. We might very well fall short of that. We want to keep as close to it as we possibly can. This is why we have an additional infusion of funds and why we have enriched the subsidies program. We are looking in every way possible to industry and the lenders. This is very important. If the hon. member has any magic solution, we would like to know of it. The budget, as some hon. members suggested, put in an additional amount which alone would give Ontario double what they put in themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that the Canadian Dairy Commission has advised industrial milk producers that an additional 45 cents will be withheld on milk, reducing accordingly the producers' revenue, could the minister tell the House whether that decision was taken as a result of discussions between the minister, the members of the Canadian Dairy Commission and the consultant committee responsible for advising the minister?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, discussions did take place. I understand that they followed the correct procedure. They are following the agreement or the policy which we have signed with the provinces concerning the producers collecting a levy themselves for the export of their commodity. They have made representations to me. I am meeting the dairy farmers of Canada soon with regard to their request that the farmers of Canada are being asked to compete with the treasury of the European Community, and we will be in a better position to answer further at a later time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can I ask the minister whether he had some discussions with the leaders of the Federation of Industrial Milk Producers before taking that decision and if so, have the leaders of the federation accepted that new policy?
July 8, 1975


Eugene Whelan: I said that I have been given to understand that they followed the correct and the normal procedure. This is within the agreement we have. I am sure they are not happy about it at all, from what I have heard, but it is within the terms of the agreement and they all recognize it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put another supplementary.
As it is very important and as in the last few months the government policy tended to gradually increase prices for the benefit of industrial milk producers so that they may be able to face production costs and have a reasonable margin of profit, will the minister take into account the representations of the Federation of Industrial Milk Producers since such representations will obviously better enlighten the minister on the real situation of industrial milk producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the record of this government, and my record as Minister of Agriculture concerning industrial milk producers speaks for itself. The industrial milk producers of this nation are treated better than any other industrial milk producers in the world. We will continue to do our best for them and will listen to the brief the Canadian dairy farmers will present on behalf of our industrial milk producers.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion relating to Crocus Foods. As a number of public meetings have been held in Manitoba in recent weeks about this plant, and as there is deep division about the proposed building of this plant and provincial government involvement in milk processing, will the minister indicate to the House if feasibility studies are available, so that decisions might be based on fact rather than on the basis of discussions which have taken place without the benefit of feasibility studies?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I accept the final few words of the hon. gentleman's sugge-sion that there is a lack of feasibility studies. Since the matter was first brought to my attention, I made a number of inquiries and was in touch with some of his colleagues with regard to the inquiries. Just today I received the most recent submissions from the company, setting forth certain fundamental changes in the structure of the proposed corporation. I am examining these now and will obviously need to decide soon, because the whole construction phase depends on something being done. I should add
Oral Questions
that strong representations have been made on both sides of the issue, which makes this an exceedingly difficult question. I shall be glad to discuss it with the hon. member, if he so desires.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I did not suggest that there are no feasibility studies. I suggested they are not available to producers. Will the minister make certain aspects of the feasibility studies available to the two producer groups who do not agree with the project, in order that they may know how the proposals will affect the future of their industry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must understand that it does not fall within my authority or responsibility to make such documentation available within the province. Our role essentially is to decide for or against an incentive grant. The government of Manitoba is carrying on negotiations with various producer groups. My information today is that the Manitoba Milk Producers Marketing Board has been involved and made satisfactory arrangements with Crocus Foods. The only question remaining in my mind is whether that arrangement, and what flows from it, will be sufficient to allay the fears of those who feel it will harm other aspects of the dairy industry.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the questions already asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse and considering that last week's decision .implies lower income for milk producers, would the minister be prepared after this commitment to ensure them a sufficient income, to put forward a new policy which could correct this loss incurred by milk producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I told other hon. members. I said we will listen to the Canadian dairy farmers' presentation and review the problem of the European community's placing on the world market 600,000 pounds of skim milk powder.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a last supplementary.
Since the decision taken by the Canadian Dairy Commission, which seems supported by the Minister of Agriculture, has been taken before consulting the Federation of Milk Producers, can the minister tell us why he did not first consult milk producers before taking that decision?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Dairy Commission has been advising me on behalf of all dairy producers

July 8, 1975
Oral Questions
of Canada and I understand they followed the usual procedure.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the opposition was not addressing any of its questions to the Prime Minister today, probably to prevent Liberals from brilliantly celebrating the first anniversary of last July 8 victory.
Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister intend to report to the House on his talks with the Minister of the Interior of the French government, Mr. Michel Poniatowski?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Saint-Denis, for pointing out this anniversary that we are all celebrating together because we won it together. But it would be unseemly not to mention the not insignificant part played by members of the opposition.
As for the talks the hon. member referred to, I must say, Mr. Speaker, that they have been extremely fruitful and that the Minister of the Interior of France, Mr. Poniatowski, brought us very good news about the relations France has with Canada. The minister met with several of our colleagues and especially, of course, the Solicitor General. But we dealt with much more important subjects. I think that later the minister will have the opportunity of talking about a very important trip that the President of the French Republic intends to make to Canada in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I should like to call the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Minister of the Interior of France, Mr. Poniatowski.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would have been happy to facilitate the Prime Minister at three o'clock. In view of what may be ahead of us in the coming months, may I suggest that all leadership demonstrations be postponed until three o'clock in the afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in order to determine his credibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When I asked why he did not bring in the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the minister indicated there would be the required reconciliation, harmonization and rationalization of the income security program with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It seems without that he cannot bring in amendments to the act. My simple question is, have those criteria been met?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I must say that on May 27 the minister was not too sure. All of a sudden he had the amendments by way of a budget on June 23. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, after having been asked a similar question, indicated he would be submitting a report to the minister regarding these matters. Has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration now received a report from the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding the reconciliation, harmonization and rationalization of unemployment insurance with income security? Has he that report right now?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the discussions on achieving those objectives which the hon. member seems to enjoy spelling out in detail have been an ongoing process. The amendments we will be placing before the House represent the first determination of amendments we think logically flow from that discussion and for other reasons. Of course, it is a continuing analysis we are undertaking with regard to a very significant program, and that will go on.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General regarding a Mr. Glen Jansen being sought for the murder of Mrs. Frieda Buxbaum. Since Mr. Jansen was sentenced in 1972 to seven years for kidnapping and seven years for armed robbery, why was he out on parole, in view of the fact he had two previous parole violations?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the parole board is an independent quasi-judicial body. They considered his application in accordance with the law in granting him parole. I must say that at this stage there is a suspicion with respect to Mr. Jansen. He is being sought by the police. There is no definite proof at this stage that he committed the act in question.


John Douglas Reynolds: In view of the fact that the RCMP in Vancouver said that the parole board has no control at all over people getting out of penitentiaries, and in view of the lack of security in our penitentiaries, will the Solicitor General demand from the Minister of Finance that he put

back into his department the money he took out in the budget?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out the other day, the money that has been cut from my department was money that was allocated originally for the regionalization of the administration and does not refer in any way to the security of the system.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour who, over the weekend was the star of stage and screen. Did the minister in fact meet with members of the National Longshoremen's Association from Montreal last Friday afternoon? If so, can he give some indication of the progress of those talks with regard to this particular program?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did meet with the longshoremen's union on Friday afternoon. It was a very useful discussion. During the course of our conversation, they indicated areas that they felt were matters of grievance. I listened to them and indicated that they should wait until the report of the referee I appointed is complete. He is commencing hearings this weekend. I think that procedure was generally acceptable to the union.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is along the same lines as that asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. I direct this to the Minister of Justice. Kidnapping and extortion is becoming a real fear to all people holding responsible positions and to their children. We had a case in Calgary over the weekend in which they extorted over a quarter of a million dollars. Is the minister prepared to amend Section 287 and put in a minimum sentence of ten years for kidnapping with no right of parole or release?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have not decided to make any such proposal in the current amendments. The general position we have taken is that minimum sentences, on the whole, are undesirable because judicial discretion can serve better results. It is open to judges under our present system to increase the penalties they are imposing. We are no doubt going to be reviewing our whole approach to penalties and releases in order to determine how we can more adequately secure peace and order in this country.
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is the minister prepared to call together the provincial attorneys-general for a national conference in view of the fear of the people of Canada in the face of ever increasing crime? Armed robbery and kidnapping crimes are up about 67 per cent. The rate of murder is up. With statistics like that, it is time indeed that we had such a conference.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is our plan to have another meeting with the attorneys-general in the fall. I should say, however, that from past experience, the attorneys-general, who have actual responsibility for enforcing the law, have tended to be against minimums in much the same way as I have, regardless of their political stripe, not wanting to take political advantage of a particular situation, as the hon. member seems to want to do.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport on a subject older than and as dangerous as the one referred to a while ago. It is in reference to the pollution time-bomb in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, namely the sunken Irving Whale. In light of recent sightings of vast oil spills in the area above this craft, can the minister advise what immediate and long range steps are being taken in reference to the continuing environmental menace to the region?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have received no technical advice other than that which I communicated to the House a few months ago. That means there is no evidence of any kind that the oil that spread around Prince EdWard Island came from the Irving Whale.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, we have had very recent indications that there are enormous spills. Therefore, will the minister investigate the matter forthwith?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege arising out of comments attributed to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). He is reported to have said on July 4 that the companies publishing Time and Reader's Digest "were in
7342

July 8, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
collusion with the Tories" to force withdrawal of the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I checked the meaning of "collusion" very quickly in the Concise Oxford Dictionary; it is defined as a "fraudulent secret understanding". I deny there is any collusion between the Tories, as the minister said, and Times and Reader's Digest. I deny it, and I resent it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would think, also, that a number of government supporters who have opposed the minister's legislation would resent any suggestion, by implication, that they might be involved in collusion with Time and Reader's Digest. It is said that there was pressure on the Liberal government of the day back in the sixties, pressure said to come from the United States government generated by the Time magazine organization, pressure which resulted in a special category of periodical publications being created by parliament on the motion of the government of the day which is reported to have knuckled under to this pressure. I want to say that there was no pressure on me or my colleagues by the United States government or by Time magazine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Along with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), I met Mr. LaRue of Time magazine at his request. He stated Time's position to us. He tried to exert no pressure. His conduct was perfectly proper. He did not offer me, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal or any of our friends a 75 per cent interest in Time Magazine of Canada.
As to Reader's Digest, certainly it has conducted a very active campaign to generate support from its readers to bring pressure upon members of parliament. It could scarcely be described as a campaign designed to put pressure on members of parliament. I would say, sir, very bluntly that there is nothing improper in such a campaign. It is out in the open and, quite frankly, I cannot blame the management of Reader's Digest for fighting back against a minister who says quite openly that Reader's Digest cannot possibly continue under the regime he has in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is not the time to debate the merits of the minister's plan with regard to periodicals which can qualify for income tax deductions for advertisers, and which cannot. I simply want to say that we in the Conservative Party are not prepared to grant the government the control over content that the minister is seeking to acquire.
I rise this afternoon because I deeply resent the slur of the Secretary of State and also because the slurs from members of the government seem to be escalating in number. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) a short time back was good enough to withdraw any slur that might have been implied or explicit in anything he

had said. We went through the episode with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a little while ago, as well. I simply want to say to the Secretary of State, through you, Mr. Speaker, that his remark was mean-spirited and unworthy of him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the minister is prepared to withdraw the remark, that will be the end of it as far as I am concerned. If he is not prepared to withdraw the remark, and Your Honour should rule that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley):
That the subject matter of this question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most fundamental ground rules of the House of Commons is-


An hon. Member:: Honesty.


James Hugh Faulkner: Precisely. When an hon. member indicates to another hon. member that in fact something did not take place, then I think the proper course of action is to accept the explanation, and I do that with good spirit. I accept the explanation of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is very gracious of you.


James Hugh Faulkner: -about the suggestion of collusion, but in view of some of the things he said I should like to comment briefly on the circumstances that led to the expression. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in the debate on this issue-I will not get into the substance of the question-back on January 23 this year, the spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), in responding to the statement on motions I made that day, said:
Mr. Speaker, In responding to the statement just made I would first like to say, on behalf of the official opposition, that we are pleased the government has clarified this matter at long last. We believe that the move to eliminate the income tax advantage shared mainly by two magazines, Time and Reader's Digest, is a good one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: That was in January. Then we got into the debate in May. But something happened between January and May. I am not sure what it was and I am prepared to accept the explanation of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Nowlan:: Basford spoke out.


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in his remarks said the bill should be withdrawn. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie), with a more colloquial expression, said it should be put in dry dock. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) said it should be withdrawn.


An hon. Member:: So what?


Mr. Beatty:: 
James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), who is spokesman on all these issues on behalf of the official opposition, said he hopes the bill will die on the order paper. I am not prepared to impute motives. If it is not collusion, I accept the view of the Leader of the Opposition on that.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


James Hugh Faulkner: I withdraw that.


Walter David Baker: You what?


James Hugh Faulkner: I withdraw the suggestion of any collusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: What we have in fact, Mr. Speaker, is essentially the same situation.


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Hugh Faulkner: It may not be collusion, but effectively what the opposition is doing is supporting the objectives of the two companies.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, come on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Hugh Faulkner: It may be innocent.


An hon. Member:: Ask Simma.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not interrupt the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) when he was dealing, however briefly, with the merits. As he was so quick to say, this is no place to debate the merits. The hon. member has said he withdraws the remark indicating collusion. I would ask him not to get ir.to the merits, and I think he ought to complete his remarks.


James Hugh Faulkner: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I will be as brief as the Leader of the Opposition. In his remarks, the Leader of the Opposition referred to control over content.


An hon. Member:: This is debate.


James Hugh Faulkner: It is debate launched by the Leader of the Opposition, and hon. members opposite might have the patience to listen to my reply. The point that has been made on this side time and time again-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Hugh Faulkner: -is that the bill-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Hugh Faulkner: They seem to be extraordinarily sensitive over there. Bill C-58, which is the bill before the House, in none of its clauses deals with the question of control.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You are disingenuous.
Political Parties


James Hugh Faulkner: It in no place deals with the question of content. It is simply a proposition dealing with withdrawal of sections 19(2) and 19(4)-


Some hon. Members:: Debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I believe the hon. Secretary of State is tending to get away from the procedural question. I am sure that in a matter of this importance there will be ample oppportunity for both hon. members to express their views on the merits or otherwise of the legislation. The procedural question has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to a remark which was made outside the House. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that if the Secretary of State were prepared to withdraw the suggestion of collusion, the matter would finish there. The Secretary of State has said quite clearly, more than once, that he withdraws such a suggestion. He has other arguments to make, I am sure, about the position taken by the opposition, but they will have to be reserved for a later date. At the moment, the withdrawal of the remark resolves the procedural problem.


Mr. Friesen:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the same news conference. The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) referred to a January 1 deadline which would be imposed on the two publishing companies. He made this reference without any regard to the legislative process or to the fact that the bill has not been given second reading, and I regard his statement as showing utter contempt for the legislative process.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-400, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (corporate and political office prohibited).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to restrict members of the other place from holding executive office in national political parties and from acting as fund raisers for the Liberal Party. Senators are appointed to represent regions in Canada, not to hold executive positions in national political parties. Moreover, they are being paid by Canadian taxpayers to act in the Senate, not to act for national political parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
29576-51)4
[Stage Direction]
July 8, 1975
Criminal Code CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Benno Friesen: for leave to introduce Bill C-401, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (pollution).
He said: This bill anticipates sizeable future increases in tanker traffic in Canadian waters and recognizes the need to emphasize prevention of pollution in order to minimize the need for clean-up operations.


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

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act.


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

Robert Knight Andras: for leave to introduce Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.


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

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-402, to amend the criminal law (punishment of certain offences).
He said: The purpose of the bill is to impose the death sentence in all cases of murder, as that offence is defined in sections 212 and 213 of the Criminal Code, which means death caused in the commission of any violent crime such as bank robbery, kidnapping, hijacking or rape; to restrict the power of commutation of the death sentence to cases in which a majority of jurors are in favour of clemency, and to increase the penalties for certain narcotics offences and to lengthen the mandatory periods of imprisonment for both murder and the latter offences.


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

John Douglas Reynolds: for leave to introduce Bill C-403, to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to limit the governor in council's statutory prerogative of commutation and the Governor General's royal prerogative of pardon and reprieve to those cases where a jury has recommended clemency for a convicted murderer or been unable to agree on a recommendation.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 64, 1,287, 1,589, 1,845, 1,908, 1,919, 2,182, 2,183, 2,219, 2,287, 2,334, 2,342, 2,450, 2,474, 2,495, 2,498, 2,503, 2,518, 2,522, 2,563, 2,643, 2,646, 2,680, 2,681, 2,697, 2,706, and 2,774.
If questions Nos. 1,538, 2,276 and 2,421 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Would you be so kind as to call starred question 2,543? I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 48 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament to the effect that negotiations between Mr. M. Dubuc on behalf of the government and Mrs. Deborah Lawlor for a lease on the post office in Lyndhurst, Ontario began on January 3, 1973, what is the reason for the answer to Question No. 534 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament contradicting this by stating that such negotiations actually began on November 14, 1972?
2.	Is either the Department of Public Works or the Post Office Department aware that January 3, 1973, is one day after the deed to the property purchased by Mrs. Deborah Lawlor was registered in the Registry Office of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville?
3.	Is either the Department of Public Works or the Post Office Department aware that November 14, 1972 is one day before Mrs. Deborah Lawlor became owner of the property according to the records of the Registry Office of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Postmaster General and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. The negotiations did not start on November 14, 1972, The meeting held on that date was to determine the potential of the premises for postal accommodation.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not aware.
July 8, 1975


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the total cost to the taxpayer of the present television advertising campaign featuring a doctor who uses the mails for test samples and concluding that the Post Office feels "your mail is vital"?
2.	How many complaints of lost or damaged mail were received by the Post Office in 1974?
3.	Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs been requested to investigate this advertising campaign with a view to determining whether it constitutes misleading advertising?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Postmaster General and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as follows: 1. The total cost for the television advertising campaign which included the "doctor" commercial was $436,138. This is the cost of producing six commercials and the total media accounts for the campaign. The particular "doctor" commercial appeared 1661 times on television stations across the country.
2.	125,542 inquiries concerning lost articles and 25,342 inquiries concerning damaged articles were received during 1974. During that year the Post Office handled in excess of five billion pieces of mail.
3.	No.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	How many community airports applied for assistance under the Community Airport Assistance Policy in 1972, 1973 and 1974?
2.	What was the total dollar value of these applications in each such year?
3.	(a) How much federal funding is available under the Community Airport Assistance Policy (b) is this amount of money sufficient for the programme (c) on what basis was the answer formulated?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. 1972, 40; 1973, 48; 1974, 46; Total, 134.
2.	The dollar value of an application is not determined until engineering facility and funding requirements have been resolved between the municipality and MOT. Of the
Order Paper Questions
134 applications received in 1972, 1973, and 1974, 11 have been withdrawn by the applicant or rejected by MOT, 55 have received approval (total dollar value $7,160,000), and the remainder are in various stages of process. It should be noted that during this same period, 40 additional projects received approval and funding for applications received prior to 1972.
3.	(a) $2,000,000 annually, (b) yes, (c) At the present time, there are no applications for which assistance has not been approved by reason of insufficient funds in the programme.


Mr. Roberts: 1.	(a) With what countries has Canada signed agreements since 1945 concerning claims of Canadian citizens arising from naturalization or the taking over of property of citizens in those countries (b) when was each such agreement signed?
2.	How many claims (a) have been accepted in relation to each country and what is the total value of the claims settled (b) have been rejected (c) are outstanding?
3.	How many claimants have died before the settlement of their claims?
4.	What countries have defaulted on payments to Canada arising out of settlement agreements and, in each case, what is the amount of arrears?
5.	How many civil servants were employed in the processing of such claims from January 1, 1946 to December 31, 1974, and what is the total salary paid to each one?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 
Mr. Ryrtard: What are the names and positions of each of the full-time operating


John Napier Turner: The
Canada Development Corporation is not an agent of Her Majesty or a Crown corporation but a corporation which operates within the private sector of the economy in competition with other corporations. In recognition of this status it has not been the policy of the government to require from the CDC to supply detailed information such as names and positions of each CDC officer.

July 8, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Jones: 1.	Did CBC send printed form letters to citizens who were complaining about the television programme "Ten Lost Years" and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How many (a) verbal (b) written complaints were received by (i) CBC and its affiliates (ii) members of the Cabinet (iii) government departments?
3.	What was the breakdown of the total cost of "Ten Lost Years"?
4.	What costing procedures are followed by CBC?
5.	Is it intended to stop cursing and swearing and the use of improper and foul language on various programmes of (a) CBC (b) other networks and, if so, what action is contemplated?
6.	What was the total cost of CBC in each of the past five years?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Department of Communications as follows: 1. Form letters were sent to many of the viewers who wrote to CBC complaining about "Ten Lost Years". The CBC receives a great deal of mail at its various locations and endeavours to answer each letter individually. On occasion there are more letters about a specific subject or program than can be handled within a reasonable length of time by staff already engaged in handling the regular mail load. At these times either a form letter giving the CBC's position on the most often repeated points or a card acknowledgement can be sent with the minimum delay.
2.	(a) (i) 484. CBC has no way of collecting information on calls directed to its affiliates, (ii) None, (iii) None, (b) (i) 585. CBC has no way of collecting information on mail directed to its affiliates, (ii) CBC, two; Communications, eleven, (iii) None.
3.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration.
4.	The costing system followed by CBC is based on the total absorption concept and can be subdivided as follows: (a) Program purchase costs: This covers out-of-pocket expenses which are committed specifically for a program or an episode of a series and can be attributed directly to the program or episode; (b) Manpower and facilities utilization: This covers the use of in-house facilities and manpower. This portion of costs is charged to individual programs on the basis of developed cost rates using (i) actual hours of work performed by program and operation personnel, and (ii) reported hours of use of each facility.
5.	Under the Broadcasting Act, responsibility for programming is vested in the licensee. Under the Act, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission has issued regulations respecting programming, however, the CRTC has no power of censorship over programming. It is not the CRTC's role to make editorial or production decisions concerning, for example, what language should be used in dramatic programs. CRTC television regulation section 5 (1) c) prohibits the broadcasting of any indecent, obscene or profane language. Any person who considers this regulation to have been breached can lay a complaint. The government considers this regulation to be adequate.
6.	See the reply to part 2 of question No. 1,709.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) What is the policy of the Canadian Commercial Corporation with respect to the use of Canadian vessels and crews in the overwater shipment of Canadian products abroad (b) on what date was this policy adopted (c) does it comply with present efforts of the Department of Transport and the government in respect to the encouragement of Canadian international registered shipping in seaborne trade?
2.	(a) What was the dollar value of goods and commodities of all descriptions sold to countries abroad by the Canadian Commercial Corporation since 1965 (b) what has been the dollar value of the goods moved in international shipping over-water?
3.	What percentage of the total dollar value of goods and commodities shipped abroad by the Canadian Commercial Corporation were transported by ships registered in Canada and manned by Canadian crews?
4.	(a) Who are the agents for the Canadian Commercial Corporation in respect of its East Coast and West Coast exports over-water (b) what instructions do they operate under with respect to the use of Canadian flag shipping?
5.	Since 1965, what was the total dollar value of shipping charges paid to foreign registered shipping and to Canadian registered shipping by the Corporation by category?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services and the Canadian Commercial Corporation are concerned:
1.	(a) The policy followed by the department is consistent with the government policy as expressed on May 1, 1974, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in answer to question 196 and recorded at page 1921 of Hansard of May 1, 1974. "Following World War II, Canada has pursued a general policy of utilizing the most economical bottoms available for all international shipping". (b) The Department of Supply and Services departmental records are not available with which to confirm the date of the current policy. As stated in (a) above the overall government policy has been in effect since the end of World War II. (c) Canadian registered shipping is encouraged to seek government cargos by being competitive in international over-water shipments.
2.	(a) Total value is approximately $995,000,000. (b) Of this amount the following was shipped over-water and the balance by other means of transportation. 1965, $32,321,089; 1966, $42,877,131; 1967, $31,299,589; 1968, $35,070,879; 1969, $38,749,943; 1970, $53,551,816; 1971, $54,698,586; 1972, $124,093,891; 1973, $77,004,293; 1974, $76,771,617.
3.	Included in the answer to part 5.
4.	(a) and (b) The Canadian Commercial Corporation does not have shipping agents. The corporation makes their requirements known to the Transportation and Energy Branch of the Department of Supply and Services. That branch, in turn, sends out invitations to tender. See part 3(b) of answer to question No. 2,183 with regard to the tendering terms and conditions concerning Canadian (flag) shipping.
5.	Specific data as to the value of shipping charges paid to Canadian and foreign registered shipping is not available. However, to the best of our knowledge the following sums have been paid for shipments in Canadian vessels.
July 8, 1975

Order Paper Questions
Year	Vessel	Type	Freight Paid To	Owners1970	Sir John Crosby	2	Chimo Shipping Ltd.	Chimo, Montreal1974	Maurice Desgagnes	2	$ 40,000.00 Shipping Ltd.	Les Armateurs-du-1974	Maurice Desgagnes	2	% 251,950.00 Shipping Ltd.	St. Laurent Inc., Quebec Les Armateurs-du-1974	Maurice Desgagnes	2	* 42,000.00 Shipping Ltd.	St. Laurent Inc., Quebec Les Armateurs-du-1975	Kakawi	1	$ 685,014.00 Shipping Ltd.	St. Laurent Inc., Quebec Transpolaire Ltd.Type (1) (2)	Total Dry cargo vessel foreign trade. Dry cargo vessels home trade (ocean	S 418,789.49 $1,437,754.00 going capabilities) as listed in	Montreal Canadian Transportation Commission, Canadian Merchant Fleet, December 31, 1974.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is it the policy of the Canadian Commercial Corporation to use any form of tendering procedure for determining the shipping company to be used when shipping over-water in the international trade and (a) if so, what is such procedure (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	What are the names of all companies presently on the tendering list who operate vessels registered in Canada and manned by Canadians for use by the Corporation?
3.	Do tendering procedures include reference to a requirement to the use of Canadian registered shipping manned by Canadian crews in preference to foreign shipping manned by foreign crews and (a) if so, what is such requirement (b) if not, for what reason?
4.	Have all such policies the approval of the Minister responsible for the Corporation?
5.	Have all such policies the approval of the Minister of Transport and, if not, which ones lack such approval?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services and the Canadian Commercial Corporation are concerned:
1.	Yes. (a) It is the policy of the Canadian Commercial Corporation to tender, whenever possible, when shipping over water in the international trade. The procedure is that all firms who have indicated an interest and are on our source list are requested to submit tenders through the tender opening section of the Department of Supply and Services. These tenders have a specified closing time and a specified time for acceptance, (b) Not applicable.
2.	Messabec Limited, Shipping Limited.
Note: The Canadian Transportation Commission's listing of the Canadian Merchant Fleet as of December 31, 1974 shows two additional companies, but neither one of these companies has requested to be placed on our source list.
3.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) The tendering terms and conditions stipulate that "contracts will be arranged through established Canadian shipping agents, brokers, freight forwarders (or Canadian shippers acting in this capacity)." To be considered Canadian, an agent or forwarder must be incorporated and/or licensed in Canada and be managed and operated in Canada. There is no specific reference to Canadian registered shipping because of the small number of Canadian (flag) ships and their
limited area of service and they are not in a position to carry a great deal of the cargo requirements. They are, however, given every opportunity to compete in those areas where they have indicated the ability and desire to provide service.
4.	Yes.
5.	Government policy is shown in Hansard of May 1, 1974, page 1921, in answer to question No. 196, as expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, which states in part, that Canada has pursued a general policy of utilizing the most economical bottoms available for all international shipping. The policy is under continual review and may be changed to meet altered economic or national circumstances.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Did Mr. William Hamilton, Member of the British Parliament, visit Canada this year at the invitation of CBC and, if so (a) what was the purpose of the visit (b) on whose suggestion was the invitation made?
2.	Were any financial considerations made to Mr. Hamilton by CBC in respect of (a) fees (b) travel costs (c) accommodation (d) per diem expenses and, if so, what was the amount in each case?
3.	How long did his visit last and what cities did he visit?
4.	How many interviews did he give for (a) television (b) radio (c) newspapers (d) magazines and, in each case, who conducted such interviews?
5.	What was the subject discussed on each of the interviews and, in each case, who chose the subjects?
6.	Did he receive any financial considerations from any government source other than CBC and, if so (a) what was their nature (b) from whom were they received (c) what was the amount, in each case?
7.	Was he accompanied on his visit and, if so, by whom?
8.	Were any financial considerations paid to those accompanying him and, if so (a) to whom were they paid (b) what was their nature (c) from whom were they received (d) in what amount, in each case?
9.	Was Mr. Hamilton invited to return to Canada and, if so (a) on what date (b) by whom (c) for what purpose?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of External Affairs as follows: 1. No. (a) It is understood that Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
July 8, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Hamilton visited Canada to publicize his book "My Queen and I", (b) It is understood that the visit was arranged by General Publishing Co. Ltd., Toronto.
2.	No direct payment was made to Mr. Hamilton. The television program "Take 30" made a payment to General Publishing Co. Ltd. which ensured first on-air use of an interview with Mr. Hamilton for "Take 30".
3.	CBC understands that the visit lasted seven days and included Toronto and Hamilton.
4.	For CBC-one television interview, "Take 30", March 31, 1975; interviewers, Adrienne Clarkson and Paul Soles.-one radio interview, "This Country in the Morning", April 1, 1975; interviewer, Michael Enright.
5.	The subjects discussed during both interviews were: Mr. Hamilton's book, his views on the monarchy, the monarchy's cost to the British taxpayer, the right of the monarchy not to reveal the amount of personal wealth, and the monarchy vis-a-vis the Commonwealth.
6.	No.
7.	To the CBC's knowledge, Mr. Hamilton was not accompanied on his visit.
8.	See reply to part 7.
9.	Not by CBC.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Is the Canadian Military Journal an independent publication or is it supported in any way by the government and, if supported by the government (a) by what department (b) what is the total amount of support that has been made available to date?
2.	(a) How many editions are produced annually (b) how many copies are produced for each edition (c) what is the basis of the distribution?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by government departments as follows: 1. Yes. (a) None, (b) Not applicable.
2.	(a) Four, (b) Not known, (c) Not known.


Mr. Schumacher: Has the government made any arrangements, or are they planning any arrangements, for the (a) transportation to Canada and return (b) accommodation (c) hospitality (d) transportation in Canada, of any foreign Heads of State or dignitaries in connection with the Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976 and, if so (i) what is the nature, or projected nature of such arrangements (ii) what is the projected cost in each case?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It is not the intention of the government to invite dignitaries of other countries to visit Canada as official guests at the time of the Olympic Games. If such persons decide to come to Canada to attend the Games, the government will regard their visits as private. It will, however, take measures for the security of such visitors and show them appropriate courtesies. In answer to the specific questions, (a) no transportation to Canada and return will be provided; (b) no accommoda-

tion will be provided, but the government has offered assistance in finding appropriate accommodation; (c) no decisions have been taken regarding hospitality; and (d) automobiles and drivers will be provided for heads of state and certain other categories of dignitaries. It is proposed to have a budgetary item of $200,000 for protocol expenses in connection with the Olympic Games. This would include the cost of providing automobiles and drivers, liaison officers, some hospitality and other protocol expenses. It is impossible to make a precise estimate of the costs to be incurred, since the number of visitors and the length of their stays in Canada are not known.


Mr. Hogan: 1.	What grants, conditional grants or loans has the government made to Canadian General Electric in connection with the building, operation and provision of, ancillary services for the heavy water plant at Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia under the provisions of the (a) Area Development Incentives Act (b) Regional Development Incentives Act (c) Regional Development Incentives Act-Special Areas Incentives Programme (d) other programmes?
2.	What is the (a) amount (b) period of payments due to the government from CGE as a result of such grants and loans?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. (a) Canadian General Electric applied for and received a development grant under the terms and conditions of the Area Development Incentives Act. The amount of the development grant was based upon the statutory formula as determined under section 4(1)- Schedule 1 of the act. Based upon the approved capital costs of the facility, the development grant authorized and paid amounted to $5,000,000. (b) none; (c) none; (d) none.
2.	Development grants made under the terms of the Area Development Incentives Act are non-repayable grants subject to compliance by the recipient with the terms and conditions of the act and regulations. Canadian General Electric met all the requirements of the legislation for the period prescribed and the grant is non-repayable.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does CBC intend to increase the amount of its programming to young children?
2.	During which hours each morning before 9 a.m. in the Montreal area is it possible to receive children's programmes in English from (a) Montreal television stations (b) American television stations which can be received in the Montreal area?
3.	During which hours each morning before 9 a.m. in the Montreal area is it possible to receive children's programmes in French?
Hort. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1. Both the English and French networks of the CBC will be producing mini-programs to fill the short periods

July 8, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. O'Sullivan: Did Air Canada conduct a study of the possibilities of providing air service to link Canada and St. Lucia, West Indies, and (a) if so (i) on what date (ii) what were the findings and recommendations (b) if not, is such a study planned and has it been budgeted?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: Air Canada is currently conducting a study. (a)(i) See above, (ii) Study not yet completed, (b) Not applicable, see above.


Mr. Herbert: Of each item indicated in the 1975-76 Estimates as being for services provided by other departments, how much is for services provided by the Department of Public Works?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Amounts for the Department of Public Works included in "Services Provided by Other Departments" in the 1975-76 Main Estimates.
SOOO's
Agriculture-Department	9,576
Communications-Department	2,039
Canadian Radio-Television Corporation	713
Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Department	5,142
Food Prices Review Board	82
Energy, Mines and Resources-Department	7,260
Atomic Energy Control Board	103
Energy Supplies Allocation Board	90
National Energy Board	COO
Environment	13,204
External Affairs-Department	4,725
Canadian International Development Agency	1,813
International Joint Commission	32
Finance-Department	1,196
Auditor General	271
Insurance	286
Tariff Board	108
Governor General and Lieutenant Governors	751
Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Department 9,177 Industry, Trade and Commerce-Department	3,422
Foreign Investment Review Agency	254
Statistics Canada	9,641
Justice	2,797
Labour-Department	1,826
Canada Labour Relations Board	441
Information Canada	639
Manpower and Immigration-Department	19,815
Immigration Appeal Board	601
Unemployment Insurance Commission	127
National Defence	12,336
National Health and Welfare-Department	11,401
Medical Research Council	111
National Revenue-
Customs and Excise Taxation
Parliament-The Senate House of Commons Library of Parliament Post Office
Privy Council-Privy Council
Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat
Chief Electoral Officer
Commissioner of Official Languages
Economic Council of Canada
Public Service Staff Relations Bd.
Regional Economic Expansion-Department Science and Technology-Ministry National Research Council Science Council of Canada Secretary of State-Department National Film Board National Library National Museums of Canada Public Archives Public Service Commission Representation Commissioner Solicitor General-Department Correctional Services Royal Canadian Mounted Police Supply & Services-Department Transport-Department
Canadian Transport Commission Treasury Board-Department Urban Affairs-Department Veterans Affairs
$000's 060 289 318 996 175 387 233 100 126 120 260 227 852 380 590 105 350 159 914 339 970 850 17 484 226 452 900 991 227 549 565 ,160


Mr. Andre: In regard to the post-graduate scholarships in business administration offered to Canadian women as part of the International Women's Year activities of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, how many entries were received from the Province of (a) Quebec (b) Ontario (c) Manitoba (d) Saskatchewan (e) Alberta (f) British Columbia?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The
number of entries from each province are as follows: (a) Quebec, 28; (b) Ontario, 28; (c) Manitoba, 2; (d) Saskatchewan, 2; (e) Alberta, 1; (f) British Columbia, 8.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	What was the total debt incurred by Canadians by way of mortgages on their dwellings as of December 31 (a) 1950 (b) 1960 (c) 1965 (d) 1970 (e) 1972 (f) 1974?
2.	What percentage of such debts was incurred with (a) chartered banks (b) trust companies (c) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1 and 2. See table below.
Year (2) 1950 1960
Mortgage Debt Outstanding (1) on Homeowner Dwellings, Canada 1950-1974
Per Cent Distribution
Amount $ Million 1,000 4,100
Chartered
Banks
**
23.7
Trust
Companies
Life Insurance Companies **
Others
**
3.6	34.6	11.3

**
26.8

July 8, 1975

Order Paper Questions Per Cent Distribution
Amount	Chartered	Trust	Life Insurance	Year (2)	$ Million	Banks	Companies	Companies	Others	CM HO1965	7,500	10.8	11.3	32.5	25.4	20.01970	12,000	8.1	15.9	29.1	40.2	0.71972	20,000	11.7	15.8	27.0	39.0	6.51974	27,000	1G.2	23.7	11.0	39.1	10.0
** Not available.
(1)	Estimated.
(2)	As at December 31.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-SHIPPING CONTRACTS
Mr. Cossitt: What were the names and addresses of all shipping companies used by the Department of External Affairs since January 1, 1973, for purposes of overseas shipments of any kind and, in each case (a) what were the total fees paid (b) on what basis were they selected for use by the government?


Herb Breau: Following is a table detailing the shipping companies used and total fees paid thereto by the Department of External Affairs from January 1, 1973 to April 30, 1975 for overseas shipments. With the exception of Taca International all these companies have representatives in Montreal. These companies were selected for the following reasons: (a) Service to a particular destination; (b) Availability of equipment and space; (c) Cost. Air Freight: Air Canada, $508,685; CP Air, $263,785; British Airways, $70,640; Air France, $160,870; Lufthansa, $83,079; Swissair, $103,700; Scandinavian Airlines, $35,647; KLM, $162,000; Alitalia, $48,497; Pan AM, $4,300; Varig, $20,000; British West Indies Airlines, $10,000; Flying Tigers, $70,000; Avianca, $31,600; Pakistani International Airlines, $1,000; Iberia, $3,500; Taca International, $20,000; Sub total, $1,597,303. Sea Freight: Montreal Shipping, $35,973; Saguenay, $22,679; Clarke, $5,696; Robert Reford, $12,455; C.P.S., $376; March, $23,641; MacKlean Kennedy, $28,368; ACT/Pace, $8,006; Cast, $3,842; A.C.L., $4,764; Lillis Marine, $13,855; Kerr, $7,609; Furness Withy, $3,144; Shipping Ltd, $540; Hurum Marine, $1,393; Torm, $937; Colley Motorships, $9,577; Sealand, $1,328; Seatrain, $1,843; Dart Container Lines, $20,000; United States Lines, $20,000; Peruvian States Lines, $50,000; Sub total, $276,006. Road and Rail Transport: CNR, $18,000; CPR, $15,000; Maislin, $25,500; Florida Refrigeration, $75,000; Glengarry, $6,500; Sub Total, $140,000; Total, $2,013,309.
6.	What are Mr. Lord's qualifications for his present position?
7.	Did Mr. Paul Desrosiers ever work for the Immigration Appeal Board and, if so (a) in what capacity (b) in what year (c) what was his salary?
8.	Has any kind of security check or any other official inquiry been conducted regarding any member of the Immigration Appeal Board with respect to any such member using his position to obtain financial or other consideration from the appellants to the Board or, from their relatives?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Immigration Appeal Board, the Solicitor General and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. (a) Mr. Richard Lord is a Governor-in-Council appointee to the Immigration Appeal Board and is presently located at the Montreal Office of the Board. His salary is in the SX 1 range, (b) Mr. Lord has no allowances. (c) Mr. Lord was appointed for a period of two years effective September 17th, 1973.
2.	Mr. Lord was appointed by the Governor-in-Council, effective September 17th, 1973.
3.	Such information is not customarily divulged.
4.	No.
5.	Mr. Lord was judged to possess the necessary qualifications to carry out all functions required of a member of the Immigration Appeal Board.
6.	See answer to 5 above.
7.	Mr. Paul Desrosiers has never worked for the Immigration Appeal Board.
8.	(a) A security check has been made on all members of the Immigration Appeal Board, (b) No other official inquiry regarding any member of the Immigration Appeal Board has been conducted.


IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD, MONTREAL OFFICE
Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Is Mr. Richard Lord employed in the Montreal office of the Immigration Appeal Board and, if so (a) what is his salary (b) what are his allowances (c) what are his terms and conditions of employment?
2.	Which Minister appointed him to this position and on what date?
3.	Were recommendations for his appointment made by other Ministers and, if so, which ones?
4.	Was he ever employed by the Department of Public Works or Department of the Solicitor General and, if so, what was his position and salary?
5.	What formal qualifications in law or social sciences does he possess that would qualify him for his present position?


APPLICATIONS BY CANADIANS FOR ADMISSION TO WEST POINT
Mr. Diefenbaker: Have diplomatic representations been made by any Government of Canada since 1950 to the Government of the United States in support of applications by Canadians for admission to West Point, the United States Military Academy and, if so, who and in what years?


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker. O/C P. M. Pitfield entered the United States Military Academy at West Point as a member of the Canadian Army after being sponsored for admission by the Canadian Government in 1955.
29576-52Vi

July 8, 1975
Order Paper Questions


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-EXPENDITURES FOR LANGUAGE TRAINING
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Finance for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


John Napier Turner: 1.	$72,000
excluding the salary of personnel receiving instruction because each participating student carries the full duties of his/her position while taking part-time instruction.
2.	(a) See 1 above; (b) Nil; (c) Nil; (d) $72,000 for instructional services for in-house language training.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-CONTRACTS AWARDED TO SECUREX LIMITED, MONTREAL
Mr. MacKay: 1.	In the years 1973, 1974 and 1975, were any contracts awarded by the Department of Transport to Securex Limited of Montreal and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) for what periods (c) for what specific services?
2.	In each case, were tenders called and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, who were the other firms who submitted tenders and did Securex submit the lowest bid?
3.	Were any contracts awarded to Securex terminated before the expiry date and, if so, for what reason?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: 1. Yes. (a) $4,320 per month from January 1972 to November 1973. $5,900 per month from December 1973 to August 1974. (b) January 8, 1972 to August 10, 1974. (c) Dispatch and control services for the taxi lines at domestic and international arrival exits at Montreal International Airport.
2.	No. (a) The existing contract, with the City of Dorval, was cancelled on short notice which prohibited the calling of tenders, and because of the labour situation at the time it was essential that control be maintained. Securex was operating related services on the airport and it was expedient to negotiate a contract with that firm, (b) Not applicable.
3.	No.


BUDGET FOR SALARIES OF POLITICAL OFFICES IN HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	For the offices of the (a) Prime Minister (b) Leader of the Official Opposition (c) Leader of the New Democratic Party (d) Leader of the Social Credit Party, what is the budget for salaries and wages?
2.	(a) How many persons are employed in each office (b) what is the classification of each person?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Prime Minister's Office is concerned: 1. (a) Salaries and wages (including government share of superannuation), $1,769,000.
2.	(a) As of June 10, 90. (b) See reply to Question 23 answered on December 18, 1974, Hansard No. 56, page 2353. In so far as 1 (b), (c) and (d) are concerned this matter falls within the administrative responsibility of the

Speaker. Under the rules, such questions must be directed to him and it is not understood by the government why these parts of the question were permitted on the Order Paper.


MAINTENANCE OF BATTLEFIELDS IN QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What department is in charge of the maintenance of the battlefields located in Quebec City and what was the cost for the past five years?
2.	Are contractors in charge of such maintenance and, if so (a) what are their names and addresses (b) were tenders called?
3.	Is the maintenance of such sites subject to an agreement with the Government of Quebec?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	The National Battlefields Commission being a Crown corporation are fully responsible for the maintenance of the battlefields and are required to report to Parliament through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Total budget 1974-75, $603,000; 1973-74, $560,000; 1972-73, $785,000; 1971-72, $400,000; 1970-71, $439,000.
2.	No.
3.	No.


DOMINION COAL COMPANY
Mr. Hogan: 1.	What was the final payment made to the preferred shareholders of Dominion Coal Company when the government closed out its account with the Company.
2.	What were the (a) names (b) addresses (c) occupations of the shareholders reimbursed by public funds and what was the amount in each case?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The
answer for the Cape Breton Development Corporation is as follows: Compensation was paid to the liquidator of the Dominion Coal Company and the Cape Breton Development Corporation has no knowledge of any distribution of any payments made.


PUBLIC SERVANTS-ENTITLEMENT TO TRAVEL ON FIRST CLASS ACCOMMODATION
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	What rules govern the entitlement of public servants to travel by air within or outside of Canada on first class accommodation?
2.	What are the mechanics for the requisitioning and payment of first class air transportation within and outside of Canada by federal employees?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
Paragraph 2.03 of the Treasury Board Directive-Revised Edition, August 1974, states in part:
-The comfort and speed of modern aircraft and cost considerations dictate that, when travelling by commercial air, economy class shall be used. A higher standard of accommodation may be authorized only when, in the opinion of the employer, the extra cost is justified by program-related reasons, such as: (a) when no less expensive
July 8, 1975

accommodation is available and a delay in arrival is not acceptable, or (b) when travel is within a country or between countries where economy class air travel may present health hazards or discomfort to the employee, or (c) when in exceptional circumstances, such as for reasons of protocol, an employee officially accompanies another person travelling first class.
A deputy minister may authorize first class travel if, in his opinion, it is appropriate to do so.
2.	Paragraph 2.02 of the Treasury Board Travel Directive-Revised Edition, August 1974 states in part:
Wherever possible the Canadian Government Central Travel Service shall be used to arrange travel reservations . . . therefore: The employee, authorized to travel on government business, obtains a travel number from his department. The employee makes the reservations, using the travel number, through the Government's Central Travel Service (CTS). Following the journey, CTS is billed by the carrier and makes payment. CTS charges the department for the service it has rendered.


PICKERING AIRPORT-COST OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
Mr. Beatty: What is the total amount of money currently expected to be spent on the public relations campaign for the Pickering Airport and what are the component costs involved?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: (1) CNE Exhibit, $10,000; (2) Brochure, $20,000; (3) 35-mm Filmstrip, $3,000; (4) Staffing, $6,000; Total, $39,000.


PASSPORT OFFICE-PRACTICE IN DESCRIBING PLACE OF BIRTH
Mr. Kaplan: What is the practice of the Passport Office in describing the place of birth of individuals born in the Baltic States (a) before 1939 (b) after 1939?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The place name and name of country inscribed in the passport will normally be that which the applicant has provided in his application.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. MacKay: 1.	(a) What contracts were awarded by the Toronto Harbour Commission during each year 1968 to 1974 (b) what was the amount of each contract (c) what was the name and address of the successful contractor in each case?
2.	(a) What contracts were awarded by the Hamilton Harbour Commission during each year 1968 to 1974 (b) what was the amount of each contract (c) what was the name and address of the successful contractor in each case?
3.	(a) What contracts were awarded by the Montreal Harbour Commission during each year 1968 to 1974 (b) what was the amount of each
Order Paper Questions
contract (c) what was the name and address of the successful contractor in each case?
Return tabled.


DEFENSIVE DRIVER'S COURSE
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many government employees are taking a defensive driver's course?
2.	What is the cost of such course to the (a) government (b) public servant taking the course?
3.	For which departments do they work?
Return tabled.


CLAIMS MADE BY ARMENIANS WHO IMMIGRATED TO CANADA BETWEEN 1919 AND 1928
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Does the government have any information on claims made by Armenians who immigrated to Canada between 1919 and 1928 relating to personal belongings which were left in Turkey and, if so (a) how many claims were made (b) how many reimbursements were made (c) what action did the government take to do justice to these new Canadians?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Diefertbaker:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand the delays which are taking place. The answer that is given to a starred question which has been on the order paper for two months seems to be deliberately vague and intended to conceal the actual facts. Then again, I refer to question 2,542: I asked whether Canadians employed by the United Nations or any of its agencies or any organizations under its aegis are subject to income tax on their earnings. To take two months to refuse to answer a question such as that indicates an intentional desire to conceal the facts. If this government does not know whether income tax is imposed upon Canadians who are in any way attached to the United Nations, and cannot answer this question after two months, then I can only say it is time for a revamping of the Department of National Revenue and of the government as a whole.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, like the right hon. gentleman I, too, rise on a point of order with respect to what seems to be unnecessary delay in responding to written questions. I refer to questions placed on the order paper on January 27, some five months ago. They are relatively simple, straightforward questions to which there appears to be no reason whatever for failure of the government to answer. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would also take note of questions 1,331 and 1,332 which have been standing on the order paper since late January.

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-63, to amend the Olympic (1976) Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I may in a few moments conclude my remarks on motion No. 1, I should like to summarize our point in this way. If hon. members review the existing act which was passed in 1973, section 3 provides that the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, may by proclamation authorize the issue for circulation in Canada of silver coins bearing respective dates of the denominations $5 and $10 commemorating the Olympics. Then subsection (2) provides:
Each Olympic coin shall be of such standard weight, standard millesimal fineness and remedy allowance as the governor in council may prescribe in respect thereof.
Our concern today arises from the fact that in an amendment to section 3 to which I have just referred in the original Olympics legislation the government is proposing to include gold coins of the denomination of $100 to commemorate the Olympics and bearing the date 1976. The problem is this, Mr. Speaker. When we dealt with the silver coinage legislation the President of the Treasury Board at that time, as well as the Postmaster General made it clear that the amount of silver content of the coins, be they $5 or $10 coins, would be consistent.
When the miscellaneous estimates committee reviewed the present bill it turned out that the government is proposing not to have the same quantity of gold in the same coins. In short, the coins will be $100 gold coins, but in two-sevenths of the coins there will be half an ounce of gold and in the remaining five-sevenths only a quarter-ounce of gold. We believe this is unfortunate. It will be misunderstood by the public and could lead to a situation where those so inclined to do so could perpetrate a fraud upon the Canadian public and upon the people of the world generally.
Second, we question the desirability of having such a small amount of gold content in an Olympic coin as that suggested by the Postmaster General. Most importantly, during committee stage it became apparent that the government was not even committed to a quarter of an ounce of gold in some coins and to half an ounce in other coins. When we first questioned the minister and his officials we understood that the situation was unequivocal. Although we gathered that there could be an amendment, the minister, on the other hand, thought it would not be necessary.
On this point I should like to read directly from the report of the miscellaneous estimates committee proceedings to illustrate the confusion that has led to motion No. 1 which I moved today. I think that what I read will indicate to all hon. members the uncertainty that is in the minds of the minister and his officials concerning the issuance of this gold coinage to commemorate the Olym-

pics. As reported at page 39:11 of the committee report for Friday, June 27, I asked the minister this question:
I wonder why you have chosen to leave it so vague and not spelling out exactly the amount of gold that will be in these coins.
The minister replied as follows:
We are prepared to be specific about the amount of gold. At the time we were drawing up the bill we were not. I put on the record yesterday that there will be two coins in the same issue, if I may say so; one with a half ounce of gold and the other with a quarter-ounce of gold. The half-ounce of gold will obviously be earmarked for a very precise market, the numismatic market. The quarter-ounce of gold will be circulating coin, which will not have quite the same finish and care in the Mint as the specialized coin will. It is designed primarily for Canadians-
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the cheap coin is for Canadians, the good coin is for the so-called numismatic trade which, as was pointed out by other officials, will be mainly for the European market. I then asked the minister this question:
-I wonder if the minister would indicate if he would be willing to see the act amended to stipulate the minimum requirement-
That is, the minimum of a quarter-ounce in some coins and half an ounce in others. The minister replied:
I will speak to Mr. Page.
He is the marketing director for the numismatics program and earns, incidentally, $66,000 a year.
If there is any technical problem, I would even go so far as saying what the minimum might be. I am quite prepared to check the amendment and make it specific as far as that goes.
The minister then turned to Mr. Page and asked whether that was right, and Mr. Page replied:
-I think it becomes more of a political question, Mr. Mackasey, than anything else.
Then on the next page the minister had this to say:
I think, Mr. Stevens, if it means anything at all, you have my word that these are the quantities of gold in the coin that we have determined and decided upon.
Then further evidence was given at page 39:28. Mr. Page had this to say:
-if the Minister of Finance wanted to price it-
That is, the gold.
-a year from now and the price of gold went up very significantly ... we would have to adjust our prices-in terms of selling prices.
I was thunderstruck by the next comment of the minister, who said:
Or theoretically drop the quantity of gold.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the minister told us to take his word that he was committed to the amount of gold and later at the same meeting he said "or theoretically drop the quantity of gold" that will be in the coins. The minister then went on to address me and said:
I think your points are pretty valid, that we should know. We are not unaware of the particular problem. Who can tell what the price of gold is going to be tomorrow? We will review your suggestion and the questions you have asked.
Later the minister said:
This is the question that has to be resolved over the next ten days.
That last comment has to do with something we will be dealing with in motion No. 2, which is the actual pricing mechanism respecting the gold that may be sold by the
July 8, 1975

Bank of Canada to the Mint for this particular minting. If we then go to page 39:98, in reference to the six-hour meeting that we had in respect of expediting this bill through the committee, we find that the minister stated:
-I have always worked under the premise that if I give you my word that it is going to a quarter and a half, that is what you are going to get. If you want further assurance of putting it in the bill, I do not really care.
Later he stated:
-I will accept the amendment if it will speed up proceedings-
Again, later he stated:
-I have no objection to such an amendment.
I now come to the reason this motion is before us today. The hon. member for Vaudreuil, a Liberal member of the committee, spoke up and stated:
Maybe the minister has no objection to the amendment going in, but I have an objection to its going in for the simple reason that it locks the government into a position which I think is undesirable. We have one objective here. It is not to make a coin with either a quarter of an ounce or half an ounce of gold in it. The objective is to produce a coin which is going to be saleable on the market to produce some profits for COJO. On that basis, it is absolutely inconsequential whether it is precisely a quarter of an ounce or precisely half an ounce. I would certainly be opposed to the inclusion of any such amendment of this type. It is absolutely inconsequential what the content is.
The hon. member concluded:
The objective of the bill is not to have a gold coin with either a quarter of an ounce or half an ounce of gold. It is to produce a coin which can be called a gold coin which will sell freely throughout the world and which will produce profits for COJO. On that basis, even if an amendment is put in, I will be opposed to its passage.
The minister replied, a little later:
-I spelled it out and I presumed that was good enough-
That is, that the quantities would be a quarter-ounce and half an ounce.
-but you want it in writing here and that is a little different.
Here, again, we have the minister coming back, wavering and stating, in view of his colleague's reaction in the committee, that he would not accept an amendment-"If you want it in writing, that is a little different". Later the member on the Liberal side stated:
-I assume, and perhaps the minister can answer this point, that if the price of gold suddenly goes up substantially tomorrow, which is not an absolute impossibility-goodness only knows what can happen in the world today-it might be necessary to reduce the gold content in order to produce some reasonable profit and it would be crazy to be locked in. In that course of events I would assume that we would be told, and I would like the minister to answer me, that despite what he said at this meeting today under today's conditions, if the price of gold shot up tomorrow to $250 an ounce, we would reduce it, say, to one-third of an ounce-
The minister dealt with this and stated they would prefer to increase the retail price. Then he said:
-Mr. Herbert's point was a valid point. Why lock me into that position when I have told you, in effect, everything being equal and we presume from the Bank of Canada everyting will be equal and fairly stable, and we are publicly announcing that this is the content that will be contained in the two coins.
We believe the government should be locked in. If it is to mint this $100 coin, then in fairness to the Canadian public and the people of the world it should be locked into
Olympic Financing
a position where the people know that the $100 Canadian coin has a certain amount of gold in it; then they can buy it as they see fit. The idea that there will be a coin issued, two-sevenths of which will contain half an ounce of gold- roughly $81 worth of gold-and five-sevenths of which will be issued with approximately $40.50 worth of gold, indicate that if a man held in one hand the dearer coin to which I am referring, and in the other hand he held the cheaper coin, there is no way he could readily tell the difference between those coins. That is our problem.
Motion No. 1 is designed to solve the problem by stating that, in any event, all the coins will contain a quarter-ounce of gold and the fineness it to be 916, so that there will be a minimum of misunderstanding in respect of these gold coins in future if the Olympic coin program should include them. It is a simple proposition.
I say, in conclusion, that the last gold coin issued by Canada was the $20 centennial coin. I would point out that the amount of gold in that coin was .5287 of an ounce, slightly over half an ounce. Perhaps nothing shows more dramatically the position into which Canada has sunk with respect to inflation and general monetary conditions than the fact that today we are considering issuing a $100 face value gold coin containing a quarter of an ounce of gold or, at the most, half an ounce of gold. In any event, we will be issuing a $100 gold coin that in each case contains less gold than the $20 gold piece issued in 1967. I emphasize that the $20 gold piece in 1967 contained slightly over half an ounce of gold, which worked out, with gold at $35 an ounce in terms of American dollars, to exactly $20 in terms of Canadian dollars.
I urge hon. members to support our amendment. I look forward to the minister's response, if he is kind enough to respond to our suggested amendment. I anticipate he will agree to at least some form of amendment to the bill.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am very conscious of the fact that we are at the report stage of this legislation; therefore, I would prefer not to engage in a debate with the hon. member although I am rather tempted to do so in light of his earlier remarks today when he asked what we have to hide. There is nothing to hide on this side of the House. This is simply an attempt to help the Olympic committee raise a certain sum of money through the coin program. We made it very clear at second reading that we intend to approach the Commonwealth Games in the same spirit.
I cannot help but contrast the approach of the hon. gentleman who just sat down to the positive and progressive attitude of the official spokesman for the opposition on this matter, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek). Before lunch, the hon. gentleman referred to the committee stage and to the railroading of this bill through the committee by the 11 members of the Liberal Party present. We were 11 members because we are entitled to 11 members, and members of our party take the committee stage seriously and attend meetings. Furthermore, in a spirit of co-operation that meeting went on from eleven o'clock-not until one o'clock as originally scheduled-until three o'clock.
The hon. gentleman, if I am not mistaken, was permitted to ask questions of myself and officials for the better part

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing
of 2'A hours without a break. Granted, he cut off the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), whose stand in respect of the Olympics we are still not sure about. In any event, it is obviously a decision of the opposition that all the questions should come through the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). This is fine. He mentioned earlier that he could not understand why a gold coin selling for $100 should be issued containing less than $100 worth of gold. There was no mention of the cost of production, the overhead of the Mint or the obvious profit we expect and anticipate. There was no mention of the necessary promotion or the cost of the distributorship. In some magic way this is to be realized by selling $100 coins containing $100 worth of gold. He mentioned the $20 coin which we issued in 1967. I ask him to go out and buy one of them today for $20. He knows, and I know, that that coin is selling for very close to $200, depending on where it is bought and the degree of speculation involved.
I do not want to leave the impression that the better coin, or the coin with half an ounce of gold, is limited to the European market. It is limited to the numismatic market. There are thousands and thousands of Canadians who fit into that particular category.
The bill before the House is simply an amendment to a bill previously adopted by the House. I make no case for the cost of the Olympics or for the deficit; I have no knowledge of what it will be. My responsibility is to administer the programs which this parliament placed at the disposal of COJO in order to raise funds for the financing, hopefully the self-financing, of the Olympics.
To summarize some of the arguments made earlier today, we had hoped to raise, through the three programs, $290 million, that is, the lottery, the stamps and the coin programs, none of which would have been permissible under the law without the Olympics (1976) Act. In all three instances it was a case of trial and error; it was a new experience. Surcharge on stamps in Canada is an exception rather than the rule as it is in Europe where moneys are sometimes raised in this fashion for a variety of charities-for hospitals, welfare, and so on. We had hoped to raise $10 million through this method, some of it through the coin program and some through the lottery. As events have turned out, the lottery will do much better than anticipated and our coin program will not do as well as some people had hoped, but we on this side of the House estimated a profit of roughly $100 million which we would turn over to COJO, 3 per cent of which we would turn over to the Olympic Association.
What are we doing with this bill? We are simply amending the original bill to make it possible to add one more coin to the program

two coins, to be precise-which will be gold rather than silver. We are not in any way asking to increase the face value of the coins, through this bill, beyond the $450 million which is spelled out. We are not in any way asking to turn over more than $260 million from coins and stamps to COJO. We are simply facing the reality that by the silver coin program alone we will fall well under the $450 million face value and well under the $250 million ceiling which we had placed there in the event that this happened to be the most fruitful of the three different methods of raising funds.

There was nothing in the original bill spelling out the content of silver in the coins. The original bill simply stated that the silver content would be the decision of the governor in council. We are not even departing from that fundamental decision. When I stated in committee that I hoped we would have a coin with a content of at least a quarter of an ounce of gold, I meant it and I still mean it.
There are variables in the coin market. There is a remote possibility that by the time we mint the gold coins, the price of gold will be theoretically $100 an ounce. On the other hand, it may be $50 an ounce. I do not know. I know that we will have to pay for our gold according to a formula that has been worked out by the Department of Finance which would be based on the market value at the time we asked for the gold. Although we bought the gold for $42 an ounce, perhaps less at one time or another, we will be paying the market price as determined on the London market when the moment comes that we need the gold. We do not want to accumulate the gold beforehand because we do not want to pay interest on it.
The Department of Finance will turn over to the Mint the gold that is necessary at the time they begin to produce coins. It is not true, as the hon. member suggested this morning, that we have bought the equipment. He read assiduously from the Committee's minutes the section pertaining to my remarks. The Mint has asked the producer of the equipment to hold a place in the production line. The executive of the Mint stated, in fact, that unless he obtained delivery of the machinery in June, we cannot expect delivery of the coins before November or December.
When I said that July 1 is the deadline, I meant that date in the context of the summer recess and the very realistic possibility that if we have to wait until the fall to start debating the possibility of producing an Olympic gold coin, it will be too late. Nor have we engaged artists to design the coins, as the hon. member said this morning. I did not say that, nor did the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). What we did say is that we have pinpointed half a dozen Canadian artists who have the ability and talent to produce designs that lend themselves to reproduction in metal. This is a particular art, as many people know.
We have decided-this is traditional and will continue to be so-to hold a contest among the people who are interested. We found out how much time they felt they needed to come up with a suitable design. Then we have the problem of engraving, the problem of coin blanks and the problem of working our demands into the over-all workload of the Mint, which is not only production of silver coins and the day to day coins but also fulfilling contracts from outside of Canada. Time is of the essence, and I do not apologize for suggesting that it is important and imperative that if we are going to help the coin program through the production of gold coins-I will get into that area in a moment-it is imperative that we pass this bill before the House recesses. This was clearly understood by most members of the House.
Perhaps I sound a little annoyed, but I am annoyed when people ask, "What are you trying to hide?" This is always the beginning of the argument. There is a lot of room for meaningful debate and honest differences of
July 8, 1975

opinion between members of all parties regarding our social values, such as was mentioned by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on second reading. He felt that housing should take priority. Perhaps other hon. members share his view.
That is not what the bill is about. The Olympics will take place next July. They will run a deficit, possibly, and that deficit will be smaller or greater depending on the positive or negative attitude with which we approach something which for better or worse will be taking place. I suggest that much of the negative approach toward the Olympics which has been adopted in recent weeks is, thank goodness, dying down, but is is unintentionally adding to the deficit. I am not blaming members of the House; this is happening across the country.
Fortunately, there is a change of spirit. The demand for tickets is obvious. There is a resurgence of interest in the silver coin program. The hon. member said it is a failure. There is no failure when a program turns over $100 million to COJO and does not cost the taxpayers any money. Because of arrangements we made with Air Canada, for payroll deductions, for example, over 1,000 employees in the space of one week have agreed to buy the complete series of silver coins, as a good investment, from payroll deductions, and other companies are now lining up. So I am fully confident we will meet our objective in the silver coins program of $100 million. This is not something to be sneered at; as a matter of fact, we should be pleased and proud that the man heading the program is earning $66,000 and has a staff of over 500 people who have set out to raise $100 million net for COJO, and that they will reach their objective. I do not think I should have to apologize for the size of his salary. This is one of our inferiority complexes which kept our salary in the House so low for too long.
Someone said today that we are debasing our currency. The point I made in committee was the very opposite. In fact, the big problem we had with the coin program was the tremendous increase in the cost of silver. Nobody complained about the silver content. When the silver content of the $5 silver piece was 90 per cent or 92 per cent pure sterling silver at a time when silver was selling for $2.40 an ounce, nobody complained that there was $2 worth of silver in a $5 coin. Why? Because, unlike the sovereign to which the hon. member referred this morning, it is not bullion; it is coin of the realm. One can walk into any bank with a $5 silver piece and exchange it for $5 in paper. Hon. members cannot tell me that the $5 in paper contains $5 worth of paper.
Why is there all this emphasis on our having $100 worth of gold in a $100 coin? Does anyone complain if he has a $100 paper bill, knowing that it is worth $100 if he walks into a bank. One can do exactly the same thing with the $100 coin we propose putting on the market. It will be coin of the realm, and the only premium we are asking Canadians or anyone else to pay for that $100 is $10 or possibly $15, but the lowest possible value of their investment is $100 because it is a coin of the realm worth $100.
The hon. member referred to the amount of gold in the coin, a quarter of an ounce, depending on the market value of gold. If the price of gold were to plummet, then we
Olympic Financing
would want to increase the quantity of gold. We are not interested in selling a round metal coin with a little gold dust sprinkled over it and saying that it is a gold coin. Canadian coins have a particular value in the world-I have said this in the committee-and we do not intend to debase our coinage. Our Mint has the reputation of being one of the finest mints in the world. Our coins have maintained consistency and value because they are Canadian coinage. The same is true of our stamps. Again, we do not intend to debase our currency by flooding the market with umpteen $100 gold coins. At committee we said we anticipated selling between 500,000 and one millions coins. We stated that in our survey of several months ago we found there were two distinct markets we could appeal to-the one I have just mentioned, and the average Canadian who is quite prepared to pay $110 or $115.
Our experience with the silver coins is that less than 100 have found their way into circulation. We anticipate the same will happen with the gold coins. These are what we call circulated coins; They are of high quality but they are not of the quality of coins produced for the numismatic market. Even with regard to our normal coinage, the Mint has a mailing list of people who collect coins on a regular basis, and these coins are given extra treatment, an extra polish, finish, stamping and packaging and people pay accordingly.
There is a coin which will contain a half ounce of gold, which means that it would be worth well over $80 on the present market and perhaps $85 in gold at this time if we were to issue a coin tomorrow or buy the gold tomorrow. We do not know what the price of gold will be when we will be preparing to mint the coins next spring, but when we take into consideration the interest we would have to pay if we were to buy that gold tomorrow, we prefer to take our chances on the upswing of gold and to take our chances on the cost of gold going in the other direction.
I think we should look at the bill in perspective and try for once to stick to it. It is not a review of the Olympics, whether there will be a $500 million deficit or whether Mayor Drapeau is, as someone said, dreaming in tech-nicolour. This was all discussed at second reading. We are now down to certain basic amendments which are quite straightforward and quite proper. Whether they are accepted or rejected, they have a place and I will not comment on them. But, frankly, I resent the inference that we have something to hide. The only thing we are guilty of is co-operating to the extent that parliament authorized us to co-operate in gathering from three sources a certain sum of money to be turned over for financing of the Olympics.
I can explain the question of two coins very easily. If time had permitted, it is possible we may have had different designs, but just because there are two different designs does not protect us against counterfeiting. We have to protect ourselves all the time. There are certain countries in the world which do not recognize the jurisdiction of a country and the marketing of its own coins. There are certain countries in the world which permit mintage to duplicate coinage. We are watching this in the silver program and we will do the same in the gold program.

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing
The fact is that the coin with the greater amount of gold will be thicker, and heavier. That is obvious; gold is not the lightest of materials. It will be better finished. It will be earmarked for a specific market. Canadians will have the choice of buying either the $100 coin for $110 or $115 or the coin with, admittedly, a lower gold content designed for a specific Canadian European market. We do not hide the fact that one will contain more gold and will sell for a higher price.
Just changing the design on these coins will not prevent counterfeiting. One might convince someone that the design of the $100 coin is really the design of the $150 coin, if one is a smooth enough operator. One might say that this design is the other one. This by itself will not prevent counterfeiting, nor do we intend it to do so. We have never hid the fact that we are out to produce two coins, one for the numismatic market, which is not common to Europe but it includes many hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Nor is the other one limited to Canadians. The one significant thing in most cases is that they are coins of the realm. For the protection of the Canadian people, these coins are worth $100, and if and when they wish they can go to any bank and exchange them.
We are not deceiving Canadians, any more than it could be said that we are deceiving Canadians with a $10 bill simply because the paper upon which it is printed happens to be worth about 22 cents. Perhaps $40 million or $50 million per year goes into the Canadian treasury from what we call seigniorage, which is different from the production of coins, the value of the raw material, the value of the overhead, the value of the operation of the Mint and the value of the coins which disappear from the country. The face value at which we sell the coins to the banks adds up in some years to $50 million to $60 million; I think in 1968 the figure came close to $90 million.
The Mint is there to operate, if not at a profit, then to cover its expenses. It operates at a profit, which is to its credit. Let us not have any illusions that when we pay for a 50-cent piece we are getting 50 cents worth of metal, because we are not. When we buy a $100 gold piece, we will not receive $100 worth of gold, as the hon. member suggested should be the case. We have overheads in production, we have marketing and we have all the other expenses, and we must have a respectable profit to turn over to COJO.
We do not intend to make fools of ourselves by whittling down the quantity of the gold. If we did that, the profit would be enormous but we would not be able to sell the coins to people who buy with a degree of speculation in mind. So we have to hit the happy medium. The reason we need flexibility is that quite conceivably next year the price of gold will fluctuate wildly and we have to make the same type of decision that we made with series No. 2 of our silver coins. We decided to maintain the quantity of silver; however, we had no alternative but to raise the price of series No. 2 over series No. 1 which, hon. members may recall, was sold at face value. That is because the silver, which sold at $2 an ounce, sold at over $4, necessitating a hard choice between reducing the quantity of silver, reducing the face value of the coin or maintaining the silver content and increasing the face value. We opted for maintaining the value of our coin. That is what I have

said we will do if we are faced with a similar situation. It is exactly what I have said, so I resent the inference that I have something to hide. There is nothing to hide.
I stated clearly in committee that I was in the hands of the committee. I do not underestimate the committee; there are no robots there. The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) had a point of view different from mine, but it was his right and privilege to express it. If they want to bring in their own amendment, that is the right of the committee as it would be the right of the House. I must say to the hon. gentleman that he would have made a better case had he presented it more positively. I recommend that motion No. 1 be rejected, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I came to this debate in a semi-disinterested fashion since I have not been part of it to date. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has presented our party's position. I have usually determined the attitude I am going to take on an issue, so it was rather refreshing to come in and listen to the argument put forward by the mover of the amendment and the defence of the minister. I must say the minister lost. I do not see that he has made much of a defence, and my inclination is to vote for this amendment unless he puts forward a better explanation. The minister is one of the most persuasive and likeable members of this House, but he was not terribly persuasive today.
The minister says this program is not going to cost the people of Canada anything. Perhaps not in the sense that we are going to raise any taxes for it, but if the people of Canada are paying a phenomenal subsidy they are forgoing revenue which would have gone to the Mint. It makes no difference if you pay the money out of taxes or give up your rights to revenue; it amounts to the same thing in the end. While I am not complaining about the need to assist the Olympics, I do not accept the argument the minister makes that it is not costing the people of Canada anything. It is.
The Minister equates the integrity of the silver coinage with the gold coinage, but he is comparing two different things. If you are putting out a $5 silver piece, people are not going to trade that coin for the silver content. But you are not talking about a $5 piece; you are talking about a $100 piece, and it is going to be traded as gold, not as coinage. People are not going to walk around with gold coinage in their pockets and cash it in for underwear; it is going to be an item of speculation because of its beauty and gold content. You cannot equate money circulating for its face value with what will happen to gold.
This raises the question of the integrity of the coinage. The minister seemed to be terribly concerned about that. While there may be some debate and some speculation on a $5 piece, there will be a great deal on a gold coin. If you keep varying the amount of gold in the coin in a way that is not obvious to the people who buy it, then Canadian coinage will be discredited. The situation will be open to unscrupulous people offering the coins at bargain prices. That is what will happen, and who will be blamed? The dealer will not be around, so the people of Canada will be blamed. I presume anyone with that kind of complaint,
July 8, 1975

whether in England, India or Africa, could write to the minister and ask for a copy of his speech, but that would not be a great deal of help to Canada's reputation around the world.
I think the minister would be well advised to consider his position and accept the amendment. The amendment is a good one and would be helpful to the government. If there is some wisdom over there, the Liberals should accept it. The minister says the committee looked at it, and he is in the hands of the committee. He also said we should not talk nonsense around this House. What does he mean, in the hands of the committee? In the hands of the government! We know how committees go here. He went on to say, "in the hands of parliament". In the hands of parliament, when the government has a majority? What is parliament going to do when the government has a majority? Under our system, when the government has a majority they virtually have a dictatorship.
With few exceptions, it is the government that decides what happens in this House. Let us get off this "I am in the hands of the House and the committee" task. The minister is in his own hands, not the committee's. It is not parliament that makes the decisions; it is the government and cabinet. I do not see that the reasons put forward by the minister are sufficient explanation for altering the amount of gold in this coinage or to justify the House accepting that position, and the House should vote against it.
I am very concerned, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see what the minister is worried about in accepting the amendment. If the price of gold is going to fluctuate, the Mint may have to pay more for the raw gold than the $100 face value of the coin. Surely the answer is to increase the price at which the coin is sold. That will happen with the coins already issued. If the price of gold rises, the coins in circulation outside the Mint will rise in value. If the minister intends to say that we are going to hold down the value of the coins which are outside the Mint, he will find he cannot do that. While I admit to not being an expert on coins-


Mr. Blais:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the difference between myself and the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) who made that remark is that I at least have taken the first road to wisdom, which is to recognize some of my own inadequacies. It is something he has never considered, and he has good reason to consider it.
The government has an obligation to maintain the integrity of our coinage. The minister has said it has this obligation, and I agree with him. He said that we have to maintain it in silver; then he made a great non-sequitur slipping from silver to gold, which is an entirely different matter. If he wants to maintain the integrity of the coinage and Canada's good name, he should arrange for a fixed amount of gold in each coin and let the value fluctuate according to the value of gold on the international market.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this motion will be brief. I shall say more when we discuss the other motions, particularly
Olympic Financing
those having to do with the copyright and trade marks part of the bill. Much of the bill, which is only eight pages long, deals with trade marks and copyrights. I support motion No. 1.1 think it is sensible and I cannot for the life of me understand why the minister opposes it. Should we not take it for granted that there will be uniform amounts of silver in the silver coins, just as there will be uniform amounts of gold in the gold coins? The gold pieces will be more expensive than the silver pieces; hence it is more probable that the gold pieces will be tampered with.
My party supported the Olympic Games from the beginning. My party's support for the original Olympic bill 2lA years ago made the forthcoming games possible in this country. As you will remember, the government was in a minority position; the NDP strongly opposed the bill, but my party supported it. After proposing amendments which have proven to be worth while, warning COJO that a deficit was possible and warning the government that its projections for coin sales were too ambitious-we have only reached 10 per cent of the projected target-we approved that legislation and made the Olympics in Canada possible. So I resent hearing members suggest in the House and in committee that my party opposes the idea of the Olympic Games, that we oppose their being held in Montreal. I have said repeatedly that no city in Canada is better able to cope with the problems of the Olympics than is Montreal.
We co-operated with the government when the bill was before the House on second reading. I then said, on behalf of my party, that we supported the bill going to committee but reserved our right to vote against it later, if necessary, or to change it at committee stage. We asked for satisfactory explanations, for the opportunity to examine numerous witnesses and for an up-to-date accounting of the budget and operations of COJO in Montreal.
The government's position has consistently been that it is not involved. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has often said the government has no involvement in the Olympics per se, or their financing. That is ridiculous. The minister himself indicated that $292 million is to be raised by sales of coins, stamps and lottery tickets, which are most important. The government has admitted, but not explained, its direct grant of $140 million to COJO for security, CBC broadcasting, immigration and other things. We are talking in terms of $500 million worth of direct and indirect aid made possible by federal legislation, but the government is unwilling to ask COJO, even though it has the power, to account for the spending of taxpayer's money.
To be fair, in the committee the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) answered all the questions he could about coins and stamps. But no other ministers attended the committee. Bill C-63 stands on the order paper in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). I have not seen him participate in debate on the bill either in the House or in committee. The ramifications of the bill extend far beyond the Post Office and gold coins. Perhaps the Canadian public does not know that most of the bill does not deal with gold coins. I shall return to this matter later when we discuss motions 3 and 4 and problems much more serious than those to do with gold coins.

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing
The Postmaster General co-operated with us in committee, but the hearing was a farce. Government supporters on the committee expected the bill to pass in the one Thursday afternoon sitting, but they were so badly informed about the bill that they were unable to ask any questions. They expected the committee to pass it without any questioning. We asked some questions which went beyond the responsibilities of the Postmaster General. At any rate, he could not answer.
Incidentally, Mr. Gerry Snyder, the vice-president of COJO in charge of revenue, attended the committee hearing. Who is more qualified to answer questions about accounting than the vice-president in charge of revenue? When we wanted to ask him questions about COJO financing, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) made it clear that in his opinion Mr. Snyder was not a witness qualified to answer such questions. Again I ask, who could be more qualified to answer than the vice-president to COJO in charge of revenue? The committee chairman did not allow us to question Mr. Snyder or even to vote on the matter. Hence, we were unable to question a COJO official. We questioned the Postmaster General but not the President of the Treasury Board who should have attended.
Now you know, Mr. Speaker, why this bill is still before the House. If the government and COJO had co-operated in committee, we could have passed this bill by now. We are entitled to know cost figures; we are entitled to know how COJO has been spending its funds. Now we learn that COJO is to make its budget and accounting data available to the Quebec legislature tomorrow in Quebec City. That is beyond comprehension. Here we are, federal members of parliament discussing a bill for helping the Olympic program and COJO, and we get absolutely no co-operation from COJO or the government. Right from the beginning, from 1968 when the Prime Minister sent the letter of acceptance to the International Olympic Committee, COJO and the government have attempted to hide the facts. In fairness, I repeat that the Postmaster General did the best he could to answer questions relating to the area for which he is responsible.
Why is this bill before us? Why are we even discussing coins? It is for one solitary purpose, namely, to assist COJO and the Olympics in Montreal to make as much money from the seigniorage of the coins as possible, for financing the games. Because of that fact it is very difficult to understand why the Postmaster General would be reluctant to reduce the amount of gold in the proof coin and make it uniform with the regular coin.
Had this motion suggested that we increase the gold content from one quarter to one half-ounce in the regular coin and make it uniform, I would understand the minister rejecting it. His reasoning behind rejecting it would be that we are taking away a certain profit that COJO could be getting from these coins. However, we are suggesting a reduction of the gold in the coin in order to eliminate any questionable acts that may surround the possibility of any counterfeiting. The minister talked about counterfeiting. We never suggested that. We talked about the possibility of misdealings or an under-the-table situation of trying to fool the public when there are two coins nearly the same

but with a different gold content. We suggested a reduction and, therefore, a bigger profit for the Olympic organization. There would be a bigger seigniorage involved for the top price proof coins. We could have a regular coin and a proof coin. There would be no question of cheating or underhanded deals, trying to fool the public with regard to different amounts of gold in the coins.
There are many more questionable areas which have to be looked at as far as this bill is concerned. However, I will reserve my time until we get to the other amendments. In closing my remarks on the first motion, I urge the minister to reconsider his stand. As the member from the NDP said, it is not in the hands of the committee or parliament; it is in the hands of the government. We are not trying to hold up this bill. We are not making amendments for the sake of making amendments. We are trying to better the situation and help the project, to assist COJO. Because of that fact, I urge the minister to reconsider his stand on this first amendment. I look forward to taking part in the debate on other motions.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I attended last Friday's meeting on the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I am a new member, a commoner from the streets. I arrived on this hill last September. Since that time we have been faced with some 80 pieces of legislation. I have been trying to orient myself with a procedure to protect freedoms that has evolved over many years; the procedure is a system of government that is trying to govern an increasingly complex society.
Last Friday I was pleased at the openness of the minister in answering questions from the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). Today, I was very surprised at his closing remarks and the reasons he gave for saying he would vote against the amendment we are debating. When he says that he takes offence at the accusation or suggestion that he is hiding things, it really surprises me.
If one reads the act that is being amended, he will see that Bill C-196 does not go into any detail with regard to gold coinage. It discusses the stamp program and the silver coin program. It has been reported in the papers that a supplementary program is in the hip pocket of COJO, perhaps with the blessing of the federal government, and that it is a gold coin program. I can find nowhere in Bill C-63 any details on technology, technique or the impact of this gold coin program on world markets or what we are doing to past and standard practices as far as the Canadian Mint is concerned. Nowhere in the bill do I see explained the details that were raised in the committee last Friday. If the committee does not have people skilled in these specialty areas, such as the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), how are we going to find out what is in the mind of the minister in charge of the program?
The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) referred to the fact that this bill is sponsored by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) and we have not heard from him in this debate; we have been dealing with the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey). I am really surprised at the minister's reasons for saying he will vote against the amendment. What we on this side are concerned about is that there is a basic departure from the historic coinage practice of the Canadian Mint. It has been
July 8, 1975

pointed out that the 1967 centennial gold coin, with a face value of $20, contained .5287 ounces of gold, at $35 U.S.; therefore, the gold content of that coin, as has always been the practice with gold coins, was approximate and actually related to the face value of the coin.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe pointed out this morning that there are two gold coins being proposed, two-sevenths of the total number to contain .5287 ounces of gold, approximately, and the rest of the coins to contain one-quarter ounce of gold. From reading the committee proceedings of last Friday, one is not sure of that because a commitment was not given to the committee as to the exact gold content. This is a complete departure from any precedent or practice in the area of coinage. Except for coins issued in the Bahamas, Jamaica, the Panamanian countries and the Cayman Islands, gold coins historically have had a gold content related to the face value.
Now the minister is telling us we are to depart from a practice which has long been customary, and we on this side have every right to expect honest and open answers to our questions, as we were given by the minister in committee. What is shocking to me, as a new member, is the behaviour of some of my colleagues on that committee. If we were to put a label on the proceedings of that committee, it might well be "Shall we adopt clause I?" I say this because every exchange of question and answer was interrupted by the repetition of those words by the chairman.
Nobody on behalf of the government or behind the minister was at all interested in giving the committee the facts involved in this bill, a measure which, as I say, represents a departure from standard practice. I do not understand why the minister was so upset by the suggestion that he was hiding things, because at no time did he give us a brief enabling us to understand the situation; it could only be done through questioning by my committee colleagues.
The minister, I believe rightly, expressed concern in the committee about the bad publicity and the negative aspects of the debate taking place around the Montreal Olympics. I gained the inference that we on this side were somehow being held responsible for all the bad publicity surrounding the games; that our questioning somehow had something to do with it. I wonder why there is so much bad publicity surrounding these games. I have had conversations with people very high up in the field of amateur sport in Canada and they have said to me, "Isn't there anybody in Canada who can stand up and say preparation for the games should be stopped until the cost is known?" There is already a $300 million deficit, though we are not allowed to call it a deficit; it has been given a new description-a gap. Tickets have been oversold. Two massively elaborate buildings intended for football and baseball are being erected, at a time when there is desperate need for the construction of low rental housing and the provision of various other services. The negative publicity surrounding the games has been stimulated by tragic events which have marked the construction of these major buildings, buildings which are residual; that is to say, they will remain for the benefit of one city in Canada.
Olympic Financing
The mayor of Montreal has told us that the Olympics can no more suffer a deficit than a man can have a baby. No wonder he is asking us to change the word "deficit" to "gap". Whatever it is called, a deficit or gap does exist and it is growing every day. The silver coin program is falling behind. The lottery program, on the other hand, is ahead. This is causing trouble. There was a commitment on the part of the province of Quebec, the COJO people and the other provinces of Canada that money received from the sale of lottery tickets would not be used to construct permanent or residual buildings.
The Olympics began with a budget of $311 million, which has now grown to $644 million and the deficit, or gap, was stated on the morning of June 10 to be $209 million. By the afternoon, as reported in La Presse, that gap or deficit had grown to $246.9 million. That was in one day. City facilities, originally budgeted at $280 million, are now estimated to cost more than $511 million. It is here we come to the root of the problem which the gold coin program is seeking to resolve. Somehow, revenue has to be found to cover the cost of these elaborate buildings.
As I have just pointed out, a gentleman's agreement prevents revenues from the lotteries being used for this purpose. The gold coin program is about the last federal resource which can be used in this dilemma. I am proud to sit behind my hon. friend from York-Simcoe as he questions the minister and the experts from the Mint on the details of this program; these are very technical matters and I think my hon. friends generally have done an excellent job of serving parliament and the country by bringing out these details. The commissioner general of COJO said last January that the deficit would exceed $200 million, possibly $300 million, unless the mayor scrapped plans for a $380 million covered stadium. The plans were not scrapped and now, of course, there is a need for extra revenue.
The warning about this deficit or gap has been out for a long time, yet we have allowed the situation to continue without control. The province of Quebec has reminded the committee about the agreement with respect to lottery revenues. The mayor advised us in a private hearing that he has obtained an agreement with Quebec covering a short-term financing deal to carry the deficiency forward. Money would subsequently be raised by the use of a continuing lottery program.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know of an ongoing lottery program which is capable of producing some $85 million a year to close this gap in 60 months. If a resolution of this dilemma is not found, the mayor of Montreal will surely have a baby. The Olympic program is out of control at a time when low income housing and various other services are badly needed, particularly in the province of Quebec.
I cannot understand why the government insists on rushing this legislation through non-stop, when the principle involved means so much to Canada's reputation in the coinage field. I do not think our committee system can survive if the type of procedure we witnessed last Friday is to be continued. We are assured, on the one hand, that there is no rush and that all the facilities can be finished in time for the games. However, I read recently that labour is to be paid at the rate of $14 per hour, largely on the basis of a ten-hour day. Yet we are told there is no

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing
rush and that everything will be on time. The thing is out of control now, Mr. Speaker.
As to the bill which has been presented to us for debate this afternoon, we are concerned about this coin program and the quality of the coins to be issued. Why have we departed from standard practice? What are the reasons to justify the last minute inclusion in the bill of amendments to the trade marks legislation? Again, I wonder why the minister is so upset about allegations that the government is hiding something. Surely some warning could have been given and some attention could have been drawn to the serious nature and aspects of this bill.
I acknowledge the fact that the minister and his senior official, Mr. Page, were very open, very able and very impressive in answering questions. But I come back to this point: are we joining the countries which put out gold coins with a 50 per cent gold content? Are we moving away from the historical pattern that the value of the gold content should be close to the face value of the coin? If this is the case, why has the position not been spelled out? It is not too far back to 1967 when our $20 face value gold coins carried $20 worth of gold. What the government now proposes represents a marked departure.
To confuse the issue further, there are to be two gold coins, each of $100 face value. Of these, two-sevenths will contain maybe half an ounce of gold, and five-sevenths, maybe, will contain one-quarter ounce of gold. The precise quantities will depend upon the price of gold at the time of minting and transactions between the treasury, the Mint, the Olympic committee and, possibly, the Postmaster General. We are concerned about the fact that there are to be two coins of the same denomination issued to a massive, uninformed market while the existence of disreputable coin dealers is widely acknowledged. Apart from possible counterfeiting, there is a massive, uninformed market for this $100 gold coin. What is to prevent someone picking up a paper and saying, "Look, the $100 gold coin is $235 today; I have a bargain here for $155", when it is only worth, on the market, $115 or $120?
All through the thirtieth parliament and in previous parliaments we have been debating consumer and corporate affairs and the protection of the consumers of Canada against misleading advertising, bad packaging and the possibility of the consumer being cheated by questionable practices on the part of business. Yet here we have the government going into the same kind of thing we are trying to prevent in this country.
If we are to have two gold coins, one with double the gold content of the other, why not have a face value of $100 for one and $200 for the other? This would remove the possibility of any advantage being taken of the uninformed market in Canada and the world. I am particularly concerned at what we are about to do in this bill, and I repeat that I am completely surprised at the minister's reason for saying he will vote against this motion. I think it is very necessary that what will happen is made known. I suspect we will find out, when the Mint reports to parliament, what the actual content of the coins will be, but with a gold coin of this nature I think we are laying ourselves open to charges of deception of the public and of

the uninformed buyer. I suggest the minister seriously consider minting two coins with a face value of $100 and $200 respectively, if he insists on a different gold content for each of the two coins.
The amount of silver in the silver coins is constant. In this case we have gold coins going to a specialized market, and these coins will have a varying content of which at this date we are unaware. I agree that the minister should not be tied down in view of the unstable gold market today, but there should be some parameters laid down regarding the content of these gold coins. I suggest the minister reconsider his negative attitude to the amendment under debate.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at great length on this amendment, and I would not have spoken at all had the minister indicated any interest in the amendment, for which it was my understanding he expressed strong support or sympathy during the committee proceedings. Let me tell the minister and his colleagues that if there is a continuation of the kind of ramming through committees of bills such as this, with amendments proposed by the opposition being voted down not because of their lack of merit but simply because of their source, then the government can anticipate extensive debate and amendments at the report stage of bills coming before this House.
If the committee system is to break down and the government is to use its party whip in a way that effectively eliminates the contributions of members to make important and progressive changes to legislation, then naturally we on this side of the House-and I say this as a private member only-will have no recourse but to come back again and again with amendments in the House. This will very seriously frustrate any swift passage of legislation that many of us thought might be achieved. Certainly we were led to believe this would be achieved by changing the committee system.
Unless the government is prepared to live up to the spirit of delegation to standing committees of real power to discuss and amend legislation, unless it removes the burden of the party whip which has weighed so heavily upon the committee dealing with this bill and certainly upon the committees dealing with the contaminants bill and other bill, then we will be faced with extensive and time-consuming debate.
There is one other preliminary comment I want to make which is inspired by points the minister made in his attempt to explain why his colleagues are not supporting this very intelligent amendment. As has unfortunately been the case too often in this debate, on this question and on other questions, the minister engaged in equating opposition to this bill with opposition to the Olympics. He used his eloquent and delicate Irish touch to avoid saying this directly, but he clearly suggested that people who would dare question the bill brought in by the government were not questioning the bill at all but were opposed to the Olympics. That is not only patently false but is known to be false by the minister and-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the eloquence of the hon. gentleman and I also recognize that strawmen are set up to be knocked down,
July 8, 1975

but I have made it very clear to the public on many occasions on television, on radio, before the committee and during the question period that at no time did I have the impression that the opposition were opposed to the Olympics. I made that clear again today. This is why I rose on a point of order. I wish the hon. gentleman would be more precise about when I made such an accusation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we now have that admission in clear and unequivocal terms, and I thank the minister for his intervention. If the government fails, as a matter of policy, to accept this amendment, it will unfortunately add to the odour of duplicity that surrounds the whole coinage question. As all of us in this House know, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has on several occasions gone out of his way to suggest that there will not be any financial underwriting of the Olympics or any assumption of a deficit on the part of the Government of Canada. At the same time, we all recognize that, as conceived, the coin program is simply a device to assume that burden which the Prime Minister says he is not going to have the Government of Canada assume. He has been denying this outright, yet he comes back with a device to achieve the very purpose he denies. I think there would be much less the appearance of duplicity if the government, having agreed to support the Olympics, would do so openly and not try to find devices to achieve that purpose.
What is wrong with the measure we are seeking to amend is that it adds a new element of uncertainty, suspicion and potential duplicity to the coin program. Under the language of the bill as it stands and which we are seeking to amend, the government could, in effect, issue anything and call it a gold coin. The amendment will specify the content of these coins. Under this law, the government could issue a piece of tin, paint it the colour of gold, give it the requisite weight and diameter and call it a gold coin. Or if not a piece of tin, the government could certainly bring out a coin with very little gold content.
The danger in this, as has been pointed out by my colleague from Capilano and several others, is that it opens up the capability to exploit people who out of a generous feeling, which most Canadians share, in respect of supporting the Olympics will buy a coin as a means of expressing that support. The minister indicated that there are two markets to which we seek to address the proposed coin. The first market to which it will be addressed-this is not in the bill, but was stated by the minister-will be the numismatists and people who might be speculators or investors in gold. This would be in respect of the halfounce gold coin.
The government, I understand, believes the best market for this particular coin is in Europe. The coin containing a smaller proportion of gold would be addressed to the second market, which I suppose would include the patriotic Canadian, the individual Canadian who wishes to buy a coin out of a generous desire to help the Olympics, which is an understandable desire, or in order to have a personal symbol of the Olympics in Canada.
Unless we accept this amendment, the danger is that there will be a capacity to dupe the patriotic Canadian, who has a genuine interest in supporting the Olympics
Olympic Financing
and who is prepared to buy a coin, by an unscrupulous dealer who might say he is selling the coin for $200 in Paris to numismatists. This person might be prepared to pay $115 or even more because he would be told only half the story. He would be told that the numismatists' coin was selling for a higher price, but he would not be told that that coin had a higher gold content or that somebody else was paying the higher price for a more valuable product. So he could very easily be lead into paying a higher price for a less valuable product.
Then there is the reverse of that situation. It would be possible for an unscrupulous individual to buy in Canada the cheaper coin designed for the patriotic Canadian and take it abroad to numismatists and others and sell it to people who do not know that they are getting a coin which contains a smaller quantity of gold. These coins could be placed in the fancy package about which the minister spoke and could be sold as numismatic coins.
The minister has made the point that there is in fact a distinction between the two coins; that there is a difference of a tenth of an inch in diameter, that they will have a different lustre and that they will have a different weight. That means that the patriotic Canadian, the poor guy from Verdun, Drayton Valley or wherever, if he is to be sure about what he is getting will have to walk around with a pair of calipers, a lustremetre or a weight scale in order to make sure he is not being taken. Those differences the minister describes are differences which almost guarantee they will be overlooked by the individual Canadian. He will not measure the tenth of an inch difference, the lustre or the weight of a coin. It is absurd for the minister to suggest there is any realistic way for the average Canadian who will be buying these coins to be able to distinguish between the more valuable and the less valuable coin.
We already have in this country, under the Currency and Exchange Act, certain specifications. As mentioned, the $20 gold coin must contain an indication of its element; there must be a specification of content. This is a precedent we could very easy have adopted here, but we did not. We instead went for a situation, which one will see if one reads the language we seek to amend, that could allow the issuance of coins with variations in respect of content or perhaps no gold content at all. I repeat that one could quite literally be a piece of tin with some gold colouring.
The composition of the particular coin which will be peddled to the poor, patriotic Canadian will not be subject to specification by this parliament, but simply at the discretion of cabinet. Once again, the Liberal Party decides to leave everything to the discretion of the cabinet which can decide to put as much or as little gold in this coin as it chooses. It makes sense to assume that as little as possible will be put in it. The amendment introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), would treat the gold Olympic and the silver Olympic coins in the same way. It is abundantly clear that the silver in the silver coin is the same amount. That is the procedure which would guide us. Why are we not doing this in respect of the gold coin? Why is there one standard for silver and a different standard for gold?
The minister tried to make a parallel with the silver coin situation. He suggested there were two series, one for the

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing
numismatists and one for ordinary Canadians, but he overlooked the centrally important fact that these coins were designed for different purchasers, that they had a different face value, and that they had the same silver content. What we are trying to do with this amendment is bring in a situation in which the specialty coin, if one wants to put it that way, is recognized as having the same gold content. Let me go back over that. I think I am becoming-


An hon. Member:: Obtuse.


Charles Joseph Clark: If I were becoming obtuse, my colleague across the way would understand me. What we are trying to achieve with this amendment is a situation where there will be a guarantee of the gold content of the coin. That would be achieved by the amendment. It is not achieved by the bill as it stands. The amendment introduced by my colleague from York-Simcoe would eliminate the possibility that an innocent buyer could by misled into paying more than he should for a coin with less value than he thinks it has. That is what we are trying to achieve by this amendment. This is the safeguard which we would like to see and in respect of which the government refuses to act.
We are operating on the principle that people should know what they are buying, and as this legislation stands without the amendment they will not know the gold content of the coin they are buying. This will be set by the minister at his discretion.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: May I ask the hon. member a question. First, may I say that the hon. member's point is a valid point. Earlier on, the hon. member said that the silver content is consistent and does not change. Would the hon. gentleman be satisfied if actually all the gold coin buyers around the world were assured of the precise quantity of gold in the coins and that it will not change in the issue, because the hon. member is making a valid point that people should know the quantity of gold at the time of the purchase? What I am suggesting is a compromise. We are quite prepared to state openly and officially before the coins go on sale the quantity of gold in the two different coins.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, a question was addressed to me which should probably go to the official spokesman of my party on this matter. I do not want to violate parliamentary traditions, but I wonder if the minister might ask me another question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the hon. member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The procedure we are following now is highly irregular. It is in order for the minister to rise and request of a member who has the floor permission to ask a question. It is then possible for the minister to proceed and the member to reply. But I think the procedure we are now following is not a regular one.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your safeguarding of regularity here. I think that my response to the minister's question would be yes, I think

we would be prepared to accept that if there were also a certain way of guaranteeing that not only the numismatists would know the quantity of gold in the coin they bought but also that the ordinary Canadian from Drayton Valley or Verdun would know the value of the coin he is buying and that, indeed all purchasers would know the value of the coins.
We want some guarantee that is stronger than ministerial discretion because to us that is not much of a guarantee. It seems to me that the amendment which my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, has introduced provides a simple way to achieve that, but I am sure that if the minister wants to take some time to devise another amendment we on this side would be prepared to have the vote stood on this matter, after others have spoken, to allow the minister time to prepare a subamendment to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.
It may well be that after his consultations with the government House leader, or with another member of his party, the minister member may want to designate someone else to indicate whether or not that is the kind of procedure he would like to follow. Certainly we on this side of the House, who have reservations about the bill as it stands, and who have introduced an important amendment to it, would like to know what it is we are debating. If the government will back away and introduce some amendment of its own to provide some certainty here, we would like to know that.
To use your phrase, Mr. Speaker, it is highly irregular of me to stand here awaiting further questions from the government benches, but we would like to have some signal of the government's intention on this matter before proceeding further with the debate on this amendment.
I will conclude by saying that we believe, as a matter of principle, that people who are buying these coins, wherever they reside, should know what they are buying. If the minister has some absolute guarantee which he can provide, we will certainly be prepared to consider it. We proposed one way of achieving that purpose, but the minister expressed some reservations about it. If he or one of his colleagues wishes to introduce a subamendment, I think we would be very interested to consider it when it comes before us.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco)-External Affairs-Request for withdrawal of aid from Uganda pending decision on fate of Dennis Hills; the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark)- National Parks-Banff-Request new housing be made available in town; the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-
July 8, 1975

mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)-Administration of Justice- Reason for parole of Mr. Glen Jansen-Possible restoration of amounts cut from department's budget.


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the leave of the House I should like to revert to routine proceedings in order to present a committee report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House has heard the request of the hon. member. Is it agreed that we revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, in both official languages-Mr. Loiselle.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-63, to amend the Olympic (1976) Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and motion No. 1 (Mr. Stevens).
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the amendment to Bill C-63. As a good many hon. members know, I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates dealing with the Olympic bills. The first one came in last year.
I have listened with a considerable amount of interest to the remarks made today. Again I repeat that we on this side of the House are certainly in favour of the Olympics, and supported the bill to get it through in the minority parliament against the strong objections and filibustering of the NDP, who did everything they could to squelch that bill. So we certainly cannot be accused of not wanting to support this bill, but we are interested to see that Canadians and parliament get a fair shake on this, and the questions that we ask are open and above board.
I have the highest regard for the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) and for his predecessor who piloted the
Olympic Financing
original bill through. 1 was unable to be present at the committee meetings last week because of commitments in my riding. I am aware of the fact that the coin sales have fallen down, and that they amount to less than $100 million. I can also appreciate the fact that the goal of the government is to reach $250 million in coin sales and that, if it cannot be achieved through the sale of silver coins, a gold coin should be minted and sold. Certainly this is a good suggestion. A great many experts have spoken on the matter but I, as a backbencher, and being certainly no gold expert, am very hesitant about the fact that a gold coin worth $100 should be issued in two values.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I cannot understand this. I am wondering if the Postmaster General and his officials would consider three gold coins worth $25, $50 and $100. Then the honour of Canada and our coinage will not be debased.
Previous speakers have mentioned the unsuspecting purchaser of a gold coin being cheated when second grade coins are foisted upon him. We know of the integrity of the Postmaster General and his department, but there are many damn stupid people in the country-the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) can vouch for that-and they are to be found in various provinces. I myself as the reeve of a municipality for a great number of years can recall the numerous times when people who were cheated as a result of their own stupidity came to me.
It is well and good to say caveat emptor-let the buyer beware. But I feel that consideration should be given to not having two $100 coins with a great difference in value. I am one who wants the Olympics to be successful.
I had the privilege, along with a few other members of parliament, of listening to the mayor of Montreal and the commissioner general a week or so ago. They stated that they wanted this new bill through in order to take up the slack in the silver coins, and I certainly agreed with that, but I was not aware at the time that there were to be two different $100 coins. I know that it has been difficult.
I was one who questioned seriously the previous postmaster general and the then president of the treasury board when they said they were going to raise $250 million from the sale of coins. I said I thought it was ridiculous to think that they would be able to sell that many. I also questioned the stamp program at the time. The new Postmaster General can check into this, but I asked where in the name of heaven did they get the idea they would raise only $32 million from the lottery. I said that that was just as crazy because money from the lottery would be coming out of their ears. I told them that they would make much more money than they anticipated. The then president of the treasury board asked if I really believed that, and I indicated that I did, and I think the facts bear it out. It is now over $100 million.
I will concede that the mayor of Montreal said to us a week or so ago that he did not want the people of Canada to have to dip into their pockets directly. But I am not sure, whether it was the Postmaster General or someone else who stated it, that it will cost Canada about $140 million for certain things such as security, housing, and so

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing
on. Canada is preparing to go on that basis, and the mayor of Montreal at the time said that he wanted this coin issue because it would help him raise the necessary $250 million, which is the ceiling, and with which the Postmaster General agrees. I am hoping, therefore, that some suggestion will come from him that there will only be one $100 coin. I am hoping that the amendment will carry and that the Postmaster General will concede that there is some merit to it.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). In doing so I have a question for the minister, and perhaps he can answer it. I doubt that he can, but I am wondering if he could tell us if there is any precedent in the numismatic world for the production of two gold coins of the same design, of virtually the same weight, of almost the same lustre, having the same face value, yet one is a low grade and one is a high grade coin, and both of them carry the name of our nation. They are apparently exactly the same coin.
I am sorry that I did not rise before the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) because he stole much of my thunder. He has so much thunder, and he is always stealing mine.
I am really puzzled that any government should have the audacity to propose two coins of the same design and face value, though differing in lustre. How long will a lustre remain the same? What are we to do? Are we to cover them with plastic in order to make sure that the sun does not alter the lustre?
The weight is somewhat different. But what if one is confronted with one coin and not the other so that they can be compared? I would bet that if some con man comes along and offers a gold coin issued by Canada, that country of great reputation and the epitome of honour and integrity, for $125, one would find out that that is not quite the expected value when purchased. Why should the government encourage the unscrupulous to exploit their less knowledgeable compatriots, neighbours, or the gullible public in any part of the world? I think this is preposterous. We just cannot emphasize that enough.
I am glad that I am speaking after the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka because we cannot emphasize too strongly this absolutely unprecedented situation of a nation such as ours issuing two coins of the same denomination, of virtually the same weight and the same design, but differing in lustre, all associated in the name of Canada. I suggest that the Postmaster General (Mr. Mack-asey), in not responding more positively to the safeguard we are providing for him in this amendment, is urging our country to join the disreputable of this world by issuing this pair of coins.
As the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) asked, who goes around with a lustremeter in his pocket, or a pair of calipers with which to measure? I hear two versions. At one time I hear that it is the diameter which will vary, and at another time I hear that it is the thickness which will vary. In either case one would need a pair of calipers. One would also have to have a note specifying which is the high grade coin, if it can be called high grade.

The high grade coin is so many millimetres in diameter, if that is how it is measured. One would need a measure of some kind.
I do not feel that a person who is anxious, as we all are, to assist the Olympic games and to assist in their financing, would have these particular instruments with which to measure a coin, and one could very easily be taken.
There is another matter I would like to bring to the attention of the House. I would like to put on the record a couple of undertakings given by the minister when he was in committee which are in contrast with something he said in the House this afternoon. For example, at page 39:11 of the record of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee for Friday, June 27, the Postmaster General said:
We are prepared to be specific about the amount of gold.
Presumably he meant the amount to be put into the coinage. As reported a little further down in the same column, the minister said:
... I would even go so far as saying what the minimum might be.
The minister was referring to the minimum amount of gold. He went on:
I am quite prepared to check the amendment and make it specific as far as that goes.
Then there is another comment along the same lines on page 39:12 where the Postmaster General is reported to have said:
... if it means anything at all, you have my word that these are the quantities of gold in the coins that we have determined and decided upon.
It is quite clear that on June 27 the Postmaster General was giving a firm undertaking as to the amount of gold in these two coins which we are disputing. We feel it inappropriate that there should be two coins, but he had given this undertaking. If I heard the minister correctly today he said he wanted to have his hands free because the price of gold might rise or fall, and he would therefore want to be able to adjust the amount of gold that went into the coinage. I wonder how it is possible to reconcile those two positions, the one for committee and the one he gave today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) rises on a point of order.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question or an observation? I find him a very fair and honourable gentleman. I said nothing inconsistent with that statement. In answer to the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) I repeated that I am quite prepared to state consistently the amount of gold in the two coins. The problem is this: precisely when do we know the price at which we buy gold? That is the reason I need flexibility until we buy that gold.
Would the hon. member accept the statement that the amount of gold in the coins would be clearly spelled out before they are put on sale, the moment we have firmly established the price of the gold that goes into the coins?


Donald W. Munro: I assume that in order to distinguish these two coins the Postmaster General would have printed on the matrix that forms the coins-
July 8, 1975

1 would call them medallions-that one contains "x" grams or grains, or whatever it is called, and the other would have "2x" grams or grains or whatever, but the two coins have the same face value. I am absolutely nonplussed that any government would make such a proposal.
There are gold coins in circulation today that do have a known value of gold content, and I can cite several. Take the South African kruger rand, for example, which contains one ounce of pure gold. Its face value rises and falls with the value of gold on the open market. The Postmaster General is proposing to issue two coins which he will redeem at the bank, each for $100, but one containing half as much gold as the other and having no real intrinsic value. This is the first time Canada or any other industrial country is associated with a gold coinage that does not have an intrinsic value, and I think it is rather shameful that we should be associating ourselves with this.
I hope the minister will reconsider his position, Mr. Speaker. I am strongly in favour of adoption of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the minister's intervention this afternoon with respect to his view of our party's position on the Olympic Games.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Is that all you remember of the speech?


Walter David Baker: Precisely. I put it exactly that way; I heard the minister say that. Our party shares the view that this is a national undertaking. I regret to say that even before this afternoon there have been jibes from the other side, and there have even been some who would give the impression that not all on that side support the minister. But that matter has been quite successfully cleared up, I think.
We all hope that the Olympic Games are successful because they are the Canadian Olympic Games. Canadians are hosting the games, Canadians will have the benefit from them in the broadest sense. I think all of us have a commitment to the games, and to the extent that this bill can be helpful in assuring the success of the games we want this to be the best possible bill.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there will not be two gold coins of the same monetary value but with a different gold content, and that they are not prepared in such a way that the average person could not tell the difference by looking at them. I do not think it was the government's intention to launch a program through which the unsuspecting could be caught and the suspecting could profit, but whether it was its intention or not, that is what could happen.
We cannot all be coin collectors or experts with instruments to examine the coins, so I think it is the duty of the government, which has the power to prescribe the gold content, to ensure the program is understood. If someone buys the coins because he wants to support the Olympic Games, he should be protected.
The amendment is relatively simple. Like the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) I am nonplussed by the seeming reluctance of the government to consider it, or perhaps put forth an amendment which would be acceptable to all parties. Perhaps the govern-
Olympic Financing
ment could adopt this amendment as its own, as a good many members who have taken part in the debate seem to favour it.
Evidently, the minister understands the problems of gold content and I accept his explanations relating to minting, gold prices, timing, and so on. But that explanation does not preclude the acceptance of an appropriate amendment or subamendment to take care of these difficulties. I think the minister wants to give us assurances-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? What, in the suggested amendment, prevents the minting of two gold coins? How is one to distinguish between coins, when one buys silver coins, for instance? There are to be three coins issued, the circulated, uncirculated, and proof. They are all made of silver but look different. How are people to be protected? What is there in the amendment to stop the people being fooled? I realize the hon. member is not an expert.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, what the minister just said buttresses our point. He has touched on precisely the difficulty worrying us. He spoke about the minting of two gold coins, and about the minting of three silver coins. We do not say there are no difficulties; but we do say that for the first time in our history we are minting a gold coin of this kind. It is to be a symbol of a national and world event and the government must offer some protection to commercial collectors, non-commercial collectors, and those who buy the coins because they support the Olympic Games.
I know there are difficulties to do with other coins, but they do not detract from the merit of the amendment. We must ensure that our gold coins bear some distinguishing mark. I hope the government will decide to mint one gold coin only; otherwise the unsuspecting and gullible will be hard put to protect themselves. Several silver coins have been minted, and each sort may be distinguishable. But when you talk of gold coins you talk of exceedingly valuable coins, and unless the government protects the public through legislative enactments, the gullible and unsuspecting are in danger of being defrauded. If some private organization tried to mint two coins which look the same to the ordinary man but are of different values, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) would quickly step in and the scheme would not get off the ground. The government should be equally vigilant with its own minting.
Let me comment on how the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee dealt with this bill. I always thought that the rules were changed in 1968 partly to allow committees of the House to relieve parliament of the tedious review of legislation. Before 1968 bills were considered in committee of the whole, and the idea was to give our standing committees the burden of examining legislation. I was a member of the 1968 committee which dealt with the rule changes. Although I have reservations about the way estimates are handled, and about the way several other matters are dealt with, I can say that, basically, the committee system has worked well.

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing
A committee can only do its work properly if its members, many of whom are backbenchers of all parties, can effectively examine witnesses, hear briefs, hear the pros and cons of a matter, and then decide. It is important for committees to hear ministers and departmental officers testify. The majority on a committee should not engage in false pretences and press for the early passage of legislation. If a law needs to be passed urgently, all members of the House, no matter where they sit, will agree to its passage, provided its urgency is explained to them.
The new committee system was set up so that debate in the House could be limited. The idea was that one, two, or three spokesmen from the parties would speak on a bill on second reading and either support the bill in principle or not support it, as the case may be. The bill was then to be sent to committee where it could be amended, or amendments could be proposed for consideration at the report stage. Amendments to be proposed at the report stage were to be threshed out in committee in order to save the time of the House. As the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) said, members on all sides of the House are interested in seeing legislation passed, although some are more interested than others.
If there is an attempt to ramrod or railroad legislation through a committee, if it is felt that the majority on the committee are using their strength improperly, if some members of parliament are denied adequate opportunity to make known their views on the legislation, the inevitable result is lengthy debate. The experience of the past is remembered when the next bill is before us for second reading, report stage, and third reading.
These amendments have to be made. They are not put forward foolishly, but because a particular member or group of members feel very strongly. That is the reason why, in dealing with the principles of Bill C-63, we have been looking at this amendment. We feel very strongly about it.
We feel the committee hearing did not give the members of the parliament of Canada, and therefore the public of this country, a reasonable opportunity to look at the alternatives to the government's proposal. This is a proposal to assist a national event to make good financially. It is not opposed by this party, although I cannot say that is the case with all parties in this House. Certainly the NDP indicated they are not particularly interested in it. It is in that spirit this amendment has been advanced.
I hope the minister will take the dinner hour to consider whether he can support an amendment which I really believe will not hurt the financing of the Olympics. In fact it might make it a lot more attractive. Perhaps he could discuss the possibility of a sub-amendment with the government House leader. I want to assure the minister that we on this side have tried to evince a spirit of helpfulness in terms of the success of this funding and, therefore, make a contribution to the success of the Olympics. If they fail it will be a matter of national shame, not just city or provincial.
In that spirit we are quite prepared to deal with the matter. We want to be helpful to the minister. Notwithstanding the fact the minister has chosen to leave the

chamber at this point, I hope he will reflect on the advice he has been given to see whether there is some way this matter can be successfully resolved.
I hope that all members of this House, particularly those on the other side, will take to heart the words of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) with respect to the position of our party with regard to the Olympics in general. Our hope is that our amendment will be accepted in such a way as to enhance in the eyes of the world this very important coin program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this amendment to Bill C-63. It appears that the minister responsible for this bill has taken to heart the advice of my colleague and has adjourned for an early dinner hour to consider the error of his ways and the intelligence of our amendment.
I cannot help but remark on the rather shallow argument presented by the minister with regard to the content of the coins. He is comparing oranges and apples. He speaks of the silver content of the silver coins and refers to three types of silver coins. In the same context he lumps that analogy in with the gold coins.
I honestly do not believe the minister would attempt to deceive the Canadian public in any fashion. Whether it is intentional or not, there is no question in my mind that Canadians will be deceived if the particular policy the minister advances in this bill is followed through and adopted without the application of the reasoned and sensible amendment provided by the opposition.
I would like to draw another analogy to this type of legislation and to the policy the minister has evolved within his department, whether he realizes it or not. I refer to the policy of selling Canadian stamps in mint condition to certain dealers in Europe and the United States for a lesser amount than you or I can buy them with over the counter at the post office. That is a very questionable policy.
In light of that policy we must also consider what is in the mind of the minister with regard to the gold coins. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to have a quick dinner, reflect on the amendment and return to the chamber, I hope, politely admonished, that he will accept our amendment and reconsider his argument with regard to comparing the silver coin with the gold coin. As I said in the minister's absence, it is a comparison of oranges and apples, because we must assume the silver content is the same in all three coins.
When it comes to purchases, I am just as gullible as the next fellow. All I ask is that Canadians not be gulled by the content. I can understand the minister's reasons for being reluctant at this time to put forward the gold content. Certainly it depends on the cost of gold at the point of minting, but why two separate values? The minister would give the people of Canada confidence in a department which requires an instilling of confidence by simply accepting a reasoned and sensible amendment.
I think there has been enough scolding and enough concern expressed with regard to the proceedings of the
July 8, 1975

standing committee dealing with this subject on Friday last. However, I certainly reinforce the remarks of the preceding speaker on this subject. In my very limited experience and yet ambitious intent with parliamentary committees, I have never heard of or participated in the like of it. I hope that I, personally, will never be obliged to participate in such a type of forced legislation. I should also like to commend the minister on his interest in the Olympics, and I hope that the coins themselves will be a further expression of the intent and interest of all Canadians.
Where is the problem, and why cannot it be simply resolved? It is my understanding that it might be out of order to ask the minister a question at this point. Nevertheless, I ask him how he could reason that the analogy he drew between the gold coins and the silver coins is an accurate one? The silver coins contain the same basic silver content. Is that correct?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Not the same tally rate.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Would it not be in order to stamp on the gold coins the quantity of gold they contain-either the quantity or the value of the gold content?
In conclusion I would reinforce the urgency of what has been said by other members of the opposition and ask the minister to accept in good faith the amendment which has been put forward.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment. I believe, the issuance of gold coins in which the volume of the gold content represents the face value of the coin at the time of minting is a wise practice and that to do otherwise represents a serious departure from custom. I understand that the South African rand contains one ounce of gold; anyone holding that coin knows he is in possession of one ounce of gold at all times.
It seems to me the government is committing a deception verging on a con game, if not outright dishonesty. What else can be said when two gold coins, each of the same face value, are to be minted, one containing half an ounce of gold and the other a quarter of an ounce, without making the difference known to the public at large? Members of the public should at least, know how much gold they are buying when they purchase these coins.
I understand that the coins containing a quarter of an ounce are to be sold for $150, and those containing the half ounce for something over $200. I presume the people who pay these amounts will buy the coins on the basis that they are worth more because they commemorate an occasion. However, I have no doubt many people will buy them as an investment, and in these circumstances the amount of the gold content should be stamped on them. Apparently, this is not to be. As things are, I understand that only those who really know coins will be able to distinguish between the two. This, in itself, is a deception, in my opinion.
If two coins are to be issued they should be sufficiently different to enable purchasers to distinguish readily between them. Anything else is extremely unfair to a gul-
Olympic Financing
lible public. If a private company were to engage in such a practice as the government now proposes, it would be frowned on, if not prosecuted. The amendment would at least restore a semblance of honesty to this minting operation.
If the price of gold goes up at some time in the future, the amount of gold put into the coins can be reduced without anybody being the wiser. As a matter of fact it could be eliminated altogether. That is not a good situation. It is bad enough that there should be two different coins, but when the government can change the situation to its advantage should the price of gold increase, it is much worse still. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying prior to the supper hour, I should like to commend this amendment to the government for its consideration. If it is not acceptable perhaps the minister would consider a proposal that is more acceptable to him and the government.
I should like to reiterate that it is important to make it known that the amount of gold in these coins is constant. If people bought them merely to commemorate the Olympics, it would not matter whether the coins were made of pewter or some other metal, be it expensive or cheap. Presumably the silver coins have not met with the success that the promoters, COJO, hoped, perhaps because people felt the Olympics did not interest them sufficiently to buy a coin that merely commemorated the Olympics. This is why it is now proposed to mint a gold coin.
Why is a gold coin likely to be more acceptable? It is presumably because gold is considered valuable and is prized by some people. Many coins will be purchased by people to give to their children or grandchildren, or to people who do not expect to be at the Olympics. They are given away with the idea that at some time in the future the coins will be worth a lot more than their face value. Although the coins have a face value of $100, there is nothing to prevent some government in the future from refusing to accept them as legal tender, which would mean that they would be worthless were it not for the gold content.
People who buy these coins are entitled to know the gold content. A quarter ounce of gold is currently worth about $48, so a coin containing a quarter ounce of gold would at least be worth that amount and people could honestly decide whether or not to purchase such a coin purely from the investment point of view.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps members of the House are wondering why a member from western Canada is rising to speak to this amendment which is before the House.


Otto Emil Lang: They will still be wondering when you have finished.

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing


Thomas Gordon Towers: The minister in charge of the Wheat Board is also the minister in the department of so-called justice, and sometimes I wonder just where the justice is when he tries to deal with issues before the House. When he talks about such things as branch lines and what have you, I wonder where is the justice in this land of Canada of which we are all so proud.
The fact of the matter is that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, are proud to be Canadians. When we invite other people to come to our land, we want them to receive that courtesy that Canadians have given in the past and are able to give today. Those of us in western Canada in particular have had our tongue in our cheek for a long time now in regard to the way CO JO has been operating, but the time has now come to try to get a little more honesty into the program if it is going to be successful.
One of the prime, fundamental principles of sport is the recognition of honesty for what it is and for what it stands. Those of us who have participated in sports recognize that there are judges, that there are referees and that there are organizations to ensure that the principle of honesty is adhered to. Certainly it is a sad commentary to say that members of the House of Commons find there are misgivings on the part of many Canadians due to the fact that this project, right from the very beginning, has been mishandled. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the mayor of Montreal are probably two of the smartest politicians in Canada today. The fact that because people are smart politicians does not mean to say that they are honest politicians creates a great many doubts in the minds of the Canadian people. Certainly there were rumours that COJO or the Olympic Committee-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I have been waiting for the hon. member to come to the amendment which is now being debated which has to do specifically with the amount of gold contained in the Olympic coin. The motion before the House is Motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Thomas Gordon Towers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recognize the fact that the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) and perhaps other members of that side do not understand what I am talking about when I am talking about honesty.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) said he had his tongue in his cheek. I feel from the way he is speaking that he has his foot in his mouth instead.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for St. Boniface would dare come to the riding of Red Deer he would find who has his foot in his mouth. Perhaps he would get a foot in another part of his anatomy. The fact of the matter is that we are talking about what is honest and what is dishonest. Apparently there are certain members in this House who do not recognize the difference between the two. That is the reason why this amendment is of such fundamental importance not only to the House of Commons but to all Canadians. What is a person who buys one of these lesser value coins going to think when he finds that he has bought a coin of lesser value than he

had anticipated? This is the problem which we are correcting in this amendment.
We are trying to bring a certain amount of rationalism into this bill. I feel sorry for the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey). He probably has been handed one of the worst messes that has ever been handed to any minister of this House in the past decade, because of the fact that his predecessor got not only the cabinet but this House of Commons into a horrendous situation when this House of Commons was promised that the Olympics would not cost the Canadian people one red cent.
We find that the postage stamps and silver coins, which it was estimated would bring in $250 million, are bringing in only about $20 million. So now the Postmaster General is trying to retrieve a certain element of success. Certainly we all agree with him that this is a Canadian project and that the time has now come when the cabinet, and especially this House of Commons, must be honest and forthright with the Canadian people.
We might consider the situation in respect of visitors from abroad. They may buy a coin which they consider to be worth $100, only to find that it is worth half the amount they originally anticipated. Is this in the best interests of Canada and the esteem with which Canada is held in the world? Certainly I believe the time has arrived when we must recognize that the government must be forthright with the Canadian people. We must tell the Canadians that security, immigration, and other facets of the Olympics will cost them approximately $140 million. The government has never said how much has been put into this project by CMHC. This is one of the problems with which we must deal. This is why there is such an element of mistrust in the minds of the Canadian people. We must realize that no one can be proud of the project when there is this element of mistrust in the minds of everyone in respect of those who are promoting the Olympics.
As I have said, I feel sorry for the Postmaster General in the horrendous task he has before him in his position as Postmaster General, responsible for trying to retrieve a certain amount of status and a certain element of understanding in respect of this chaotic situation which has developed through three people, his predecessor the former postmaster general, the Prime Minister, and the mayor of Montreal. It is a shame that these three could get not only this House of Commons but the Canadian people in such a tumultuous and chaotic situation.
I hope members opposite would try to put themselves in a position where they would say to themselves, to this country, and to all Canadians, that they have made a mistake, that perhaps they have misled the people a great deal in the past, but that the time has now arrived when from here on in they will do all in their power to correct the situation. Certainly I am sure this would be a change for the cabinet and for the member for St. Boniface. It would certainly be a change for the hon. member for St. Boniface. Nevertheless I think the time has now come when the cabinet and this House of Commons must be honest and straightforward with the Canadian people so that COJO will be a success, and so that the Olympics will achieve the status which each and every Canadian would like to see them achieve.
July 8, 1975


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the debate this afternoon the minister indicated to several of my colleagues in answer to questions that he felt there might be some solution to the items raised in motion No. 1. I think he suggested he would be willing to identify the actual amount of gold in the coins at some later stage and wondered whether that would satisfy my colleagues. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the minister might be given an opportunity to tell us to what extent he is willing to try to accommodate us on the points we have been raising in respect of motion No. 1. It may be that if there is some type of accommodation some compromise could be reached. Perhaps motion No. 1 could be stood for a while to give us an opportunity to see what we might work out, and in the meantime we could continue the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), if the minister wishes to speak he could do so with the unanimous consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the unanimous consent of the House.
I	do not want to speak again until we reach the next amendment. I think I made it clear that I am opposed to this amendment. What other alternatives I have I will take when I speak later on in the exchange on third reading.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The question is on motion No. 1. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Pursuant to section
II	of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. We are now on motion No. 2.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That Bill C-63, an act to amend the Olympic (1976) Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 11 to 13 inclusive on page 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"price of that gold to be a price that is the average of the London Free Market prices, calculated from a.m. and p.m. fixings, as reported by Sharps Pixley Ltd., for the five market days immediately preceding the day upon which that gold is delivered to the Royal Canadian Mint for coining".
Olympic Financing


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer the House to clause 3 of Bill C-63 which deals with the price of gold for coins, and I would like to read the proposed section which is in the bill before us, which states:
11.1 With respect to any gold held by or on behalf of the Minister of Finance for the Exchange Fund Account that is used in the production of gold Olympic coins, the Minister of Finance shall, for the purposes of this Act and the Currency and Exchange Act, determine the selling price of that gold on the basis of the market price of the gold when the selling price is determined.
I would emphasize the last words that I have just read. It states that the price of any gold that will be transferred and sold by the Bank of Canada under the direction of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will be determined on the basis of the market price of the gold when the selling price is determined.
The amendment that I am suggesting in motion No. 2 is simply an amendment to clarify when the pricing will take place. I suggest that the wording as it now appears in clause 3 of Bill C-63 is almost worthless. It states that a price will be set when the price will be set. If you take away the legal jargon, that is exactly what it says.
I believe, and certainly the members of this caucus believe-and I hope we will have the majority of the members with us-that it is extremely important that there be no question that Canada has received fair value for the gold that it transfers over to the Mint for the minting of these coins for which the Olympic organizing committee will be getting the benefit. I say that because, as most hon. members realize, the gold that is now in the Bank of Canada vaults across the street on Wellington Street, hundreds of thousands of ounces of it, is valued on the books of Canada at approximately $42 per ounce. The current market value for gold in London is $162 per ounce. So, in short, the price of gold, between the recorded value and today's market value, is about $120 per ounce more than the recorded value.
I believe that it is extremely important that when we try to determine the fair value of that gold we identify the actual date on which the Mint, and in turn COJO, will be expected not only to pay for the gold but to accept the gold so far as pricing is concerned. If it is left open there will be all kinds of room for uncertainty regarding the fairness of the pricing. For example, we were told in committee that there was still no firm thinking concerning the mechanism that would be used with respect to the pricing of this gold. When the bill was first introduced, the question was still under study.
I would like to refer the House to that section of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, issue No. 30 of June 27, to which I referred earlier, and where it is stated at page 39:28 that the question as to how to resolve the actual pricing of the gold will be determined over the next ten days. Those ten days are over, and I believe that if the minister chooses to speak on motion No. 2 he should first indicate what has been the decision. I hope that the decision has been one which will ensure a minimum of doubt in future concerning whether Canada has received fair value for the gold.

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing
During the committee proceedings to which I have referred, members were questioning the minister as to how the gold would be priced, and the minister suggested that they would probably work out a plan to be announced ten days after the bill is passed. Under the plan the Minister of Finance would fix a day in the future-an unspecified day and we do not know whether it would be ten days or a year hence-which would be the selling price day. The selling price would be determined by taking the five average price fixings in London in the previous five days. Our suggestion is that it does not have to be left in such a nebulous condition. We are being asked to do something that is unique.
As was outlined in the debate on motion No. 1, we are being asked to mint $100 coins which will contain gold which will be bought from Canada. We believe that it is highly important that parliament be satisfied as to the price that would be put on that gold which will eventually be put into the coins. Clearly, if the gold is sold below the true market value it will confer a benefit on COJO.
In fairness, I think the minister made it clear in committee that it was not his intention to have the gold sold at below what was looked on as fair market value. But ministers come and go. The last time this legislation was considered we had a different postmaster general and we had a different president of the treasury board. Surely it is important that if any question comes up in future it be settled right in the House before we give final approval to this legislation.
That is why in my amendment I suggest that the wording of the section as I have read it is fine provided we go further and state not only when the selling price will be determined but definitively that the selling price shall be the price of gold that is the average of the London Free Market prices, calculated from a.m. and p.m. fixings, as reported by Sharps Pixley Ltd., for the five market days immediately preceding the day upon which that gold is delivered to the Royal Canadian Mint for coining. In short, we are suggesting that the opportune time to put a price on the gold is on delivery. What could be more natural?
If the coin program goes to the Mint and it is stated that it is felt that the coins should be minted on January 1 or February 1, arrangements should be made with the Bank of Canada for delivery on that date. As soon as the gold is delivered on, for example, February 1, then the price for that gold will be automatically determined by taking the average of the a.m. and p.m. fixings in London, according to Sharps Pixley Ltd., for the previous five days. Surely that would prevent any suggestion of dates being chosen for the advantage of COJO, or conversely-and I think we must consider this-a date being chosen on which COJO in the future feels that it is put at a disadvantage. Most business is transacted on this basis: on delivery, payment is made. If the actual cash is a problem, we are not suggesting that there has to be payment made on delivery. We are saying that the price should be settled on the day of delivery.
The other reason we suggest that it would be suitable to have the pricing related to the date of delivery is that we found in the proceedings before the Miscellaneous Esti-

mates Committee that the gold will not be transferred in a lump sum, but in all likelihood it will dribble across from the Bank of Canada to the Mint for coining. There again we believe that surely the businesslike approach would be simply to have the price set for each delivery in accordance with the amount of gold delivered and the price as shown on the London exchange in the previous five days.
Think of the alternative. We are talking about possibly 300,000 ounces of gold. If one were to use some arithmetic, it is not too hard to see that there are millions of dollars under consideration here. If we followed the suggestion outlined by the minister of fixing some date in the future, I can assure the House that someone will resent very much the pricing which would then evolve. Someone will be the loser. It will either be COJO or the Government of Canada, and judging by the way this Olympic program has been run to date, unfortunately it seems to be the Government of Canada which comes out the loser when there is to be a loser.
I was disappointed with the attitude taken when we were dealing with motion No. 1 because I feel that perhaps there has been in the debate which has taken place with regard to Bill C-63 a demonstration of the new found arrogance in this majority government led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I say this because when the original bill with respect to the Olympics came up there were eight significant amendments proposed and accepted at committee stage. I believe the bill was greatly improved by the amendments we suggested at that time. I believe that a co-operative attitude developed between the then president of the treasury board, the then postmaster general, and opposition representatives. It was a wholesome thing, and it ensured that the financing of the Olympics not only went ahead but that it went ahead in a prudent manner.
Unfortunately we are now running into an entirely different spirit. When we attempted to do exactly the same thing at committee stage with respect to Bill C-63 as we did with the original Olympics bill, we found that we ran into that phalanx of eleven Liberal members on the committee who, in effect, literally said at the committee proceedings that they had had private discussions with the minister, were satisfied, they and that they wanted us to get on with the bill. They were not interested in any amendments we might propose.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: Tsk, tsk!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Oddly enough, during the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee review of Bill C-63 the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), our only witness incidentally, referred on several occasions to provisions in the existing act which are protective provisions without realizing, app-rently, that the provisions he was referring to in the existing Olympics Act are provisions which were put in at our suggestion. And yet we now find that when we make equally strong, if not stronger suggestions with respect to how he should be amending Bill C-63, we get the back of his hand, and we certainly got the backs of the hands of the eleven Liberal members sitting on that committee.
July 8, 1975

Let me refer to some of the amendments which were accepted when Bill C-196 came before this House and was passed on July 27, 1973. For some odd reason Olympics legislation always seems to come in the summertime. We are always told that there is great urgency to have it passed. It was the same in 1973.
For example, in clause 5(2) we succeeded in having it ensured that the Olympic coins would not be issued or sold by the Government of Canada at less than the face value of the coin or under any arrangement whereby the net consideration received by the Government of Canada for the coin was less than its face value. Until that amendment went in, it was literally possible that these coins could have been distributed not only in Canada, but any place in the world, on a necessary discount basis, which would have meant that a person could have cleaned up 1 per cent or 10 per cent without any effort whatsoever but, unfortunately, at the expense of the Dominion of Canada.
Another amendment we proposed was that the total amount of the face value of all Olympic coins issued or sold pursuant to the act should not exceed $450 million exclusive of the total amount of the face value of any such coins redeemed. Again that was one of our amendments. The minister referred specifically at committee to that being a protection which would in turn cover the gold coins and we agreed.
We proposed that the government put into the act a provision that any coins would be taken out of circulation if, in the opinion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), there were too many coins in circulation in Canada. We also proposed that no person involved in the promotion or operation of the Olympics, or who had a financial interest with respect to the Olympics, should offer or give any other person any subsidy, commission, benefit or other pecuniary benefit for the coins which would directly or indirectly result in the sale of coins by that other person at less than the face value of the coins so purchased.
Later in this debate I intend to come back to this section because there was evidence during the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee hearing which appeared to indicate that coins may have been sold in contravention of the subsection to which I have just referred, but for now I am simply pointing out that during the minority government days we were successful in having important amendments put into the Olympic Act. Now we see the arrogance of this new majority oriented government, which is not interested in listening to what members of the opposition may have to say with regard to legislation.
Another successful amendment we proposed was that the coin program and the stamp program should not contribute in excess of $260 million to COJO. As the House will recall, we also succeeded in establishing that 45 days after the expiration of March and of September each year-every six months, in other words-a report from both the Postmaster General and from the Minister of Finance should be tabled. These were helpful amendments which were worthwhile with respect to Bill C-196. I believe the amendments which my colleague and myself are proposing today are equally helpful in ensuring that Bill C-63 will be a prudent piece of legislation, and legislation which this House will not in the future regret having passed.
Olympic Financing
We have an important question of principle here and we are owed an answer from the minister as to why he cannot be more definitive about the manner in which the gold will be priced that is delivered from the Canadian treasury to the Mint.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a few words at this time on the second proposed amendment. It goes without saying that the cost of gold is very important to the potential profit that we hope to make from the sale of coins. I think the bill is very clear on how that is to be determined. I thought I was very clear at the committee meeting which lasted from nine in the morning until three in the afternoon. Because I sincerely meant that we should be as open and frank as possible, the questioning was limited, fairly I think, to the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).
The hon. member for York-Simcoe had over two hours on Friday to ask questions and those he asked were pertinent, so I am a little bit at a loss to hear him complaining about the committee system today. Many members have spoken about the committee system not functioning, but on Friday, as I am sure the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) will attest, for he was there throughout, we went from nine o'clock in the morning, through the lunch hour, to three o'clock in the afternoon.


An hon. Member:: You didn't.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I left for about two hours for reasons beyond my control. I was there from nine until eleven when I left on other business, and then I came back. When I left the committee was in the very good hands of half a dozen officials from my department and the committee members themselves. I have no apologies for not sitting from nine until three, particularly as most of the questions were repetitious, as will be evident from the testimony.
I can approach this in a partisan manner if we want to turn this report stage into debate. It is not my bill in the sense that I am going to upset. I am only here to bring in changes to that bill in the area that affects me.
I am not here to apologize for COJO, if apologies are needed. Maybe I am a little bit more careful than to suggest there is anything dishonest about COJO. If any word has been overused today it is that word honesty. Everybody talks about honesty. The inference is that somebody or something is dishonest, but nobody has spelled it out.
I am still waiting to hear from members of the opposition just what is dishonest. If they think COJO is dishonest they should say so, but this is not the forum for that. We are debating amendments to a bill passed by parliament, which includes amendments from the opposition. It permits funds to be raised from the sale of stamps and silver coins-that is what it specifies-with a ceiling and a limitation on the face value of the coins that could be potentially in circulation.
I am not here to defend COJO, Mayor Drapeau, or a deficit; that is entirely up to them and no doubt they will have to do so one of these days. Neither am I here to cast
7374

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing
reflections on their integrity until I know the facts. It seems to me that there has been an undercurrent in most of the speeches today, and that makes me uneasy. I am always a little bit careful about branding people or organizations as honest or dishonest until I am sure of my facts.
It is very obvious that the price of gold is important. I understand the first amendment that was brought up in which it was suggested that the parameters of the amount of gold in the coins should be specified-one-quarter ounce for circulation coins and one-half ounce for coins directed to the numismatic market. Most of the questions that should be answered because they relate to the cost of gold were about how we are going to make the distinction. I can only say that we will make the distinction in the same way we now make the distinction in the silver coins. While it is true there is the same amount of silver in the silver coins-and I say this objectively-there are three coins in every issue you can buy now-a $10 circulating coin, the uncirculated coin, and the proof set. How do you protect yourself now if you are faced with three silver coins? Although the value of the silver is the same the cost of the coin is different.


An hon. Member:: Make the content of gold the same.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have listened quietly and I would appreciate it if the hon. member would do the same.
People who buy silver coins-and they are buying them in greater quantities than ever before and that should please everybody-how do they distinguish between uncirculated, circulated, and the proof set? The best advice I can give is to go to a reliable distributor, a chartered bank or a reputable coin dealer in the community, the Caisse Populaire, the credit union, or some other known, respected and reputable coin dealer. It is rather simple advice but it is good advice. If you buy from somebody on the corner who is going to give you a bargain, then you will have to take your chances.
I do not know of too many people who buy or collect gold coins, particularly those that we will be making, for those people who are interested in saving coins-and they are not limited to Europe although that is the next potential market-who will pay $150 or $175 for a gold coin and not check their value.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would allow a question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: Can the minister tell us where we are going to find a reputable coin dealer who, under this bill as it stands, is going to be able to tell us the gold content of the coins which this bill proposes to set forth in the absence of any guarantee of the gold content? That guarantee is absent now. Can the minister tell us where we are going to find that kind of dealer and have that guarantee, as the bill exists?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I never want to discourage the hon. member; he is one of the better debaters in the House and should be encouraged. I noticed his question "as the bill stands"-he did not need to add that.

I told the hon. member earlier about the way we buy gold and that the price of gold is not fixed. It fluctuates, as everybody knows. Everybody who distributes coins for the coins program will know exactly the amount of gold in the coins. A dealer would not be much good if he could not answer that question for his customers in good faith.
The cost of gold is extremely important. Until we are certain as to the price we shall pay for the gold, we cannot afford to be dogmatic about the quantity we shall put into the coins. We shall let everybody know how much gold is in both coins when they are produced and before they are sold. That is only logical; it is what you would expect of me, and is what I should expect if others were doing this.
Moreover, if gold prices rise, the gold in the coins will not be reduced. Gold coins are not like silver coins, which come in seven sets. There will be two gold coins of similar design but of different quality, their price being determined according to the value of gold content. Once we decide how much gold to put in our coins, we shall not change our minds, no matter what happens to the gold market.
What happened to the silver market is something else. Hon. members will recall that the first series of circulated coins was sold at $5 per coin. When we struck the second series, silver prices had risen from about $2.40 to $4-odd, and we faced exactly the same problem as we are now discussing. We decided, rightly I think, not to debase Canadian currency by reducing silver content but, rather, to increase the selling price and maintain the quality of sterling silver in the coins, even though we knew that would restrict the market.
We knew that Canadians would need to part with more paper money for the silver coins, but did not regret our decision. Our role is not at all costs to maximize profits from the sales of coins in order to help COJO. We are responsible for maintaining the quantity of Canadian coins, Canadian minting, and the reputation of Canada. We must protect the quality of our coins. If gold prices drop, there will be a drop in the price. If gold prices rise, we shall have a smaller profit margin on which to work. Once we have specified how much gold the coins will contain, that ratio of gold to alloy will be maintained.
Our coins will be good value and will exceed the specifications of most countries. I have the tables in front of me; I will not deal with them nor speculate about the future value of our gold coins. I can say this: our 1967 series of gold coins are now selling for $250. I checked at dinner time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No way.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is expert in everything. Is there any subject which he knows nothing about?


An hon. Member:: Banking.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I checked with coin dealers and people who know a little more about coins than the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), and I learned that the $20 gold piece of 1967 is now selling for $250. Reputable coin
July 8, 1975

dealers are selling them. If the hon. member can buy them cheaper, more power to him, but he will not find many selling for $20, no matter to what tables he refers. I have my tables and, although I respect the hon. member for York-Simcoe, I prefer mine to his.
Last Friday Mr. Neufeld, of the Department of Finance, attended the committee hearings. I said, and this is fundamental to the bill-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister indicated that the Canadian 1967 $20 gold piece now sells for $250. Can the minister say where he received that quote because yesterday, when I checked with the Bank of Nova Scotia, the coins were selling for $180.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will not argue with the hon. member. One can see his attitude. As I said earlier, I am fully convinced that some opposition members want the bill to pass. Earlier the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) showed a positive approach to it. Amendments are acceptable if they improve the bill. The hon. member for York-Simcoe has done nothing but filibuster this bill. I know the conventional wisdom says that you should not upset members if you want a bill to pass the report stage. I say this: if the hon. member wants to hold the bill up, all right. I will lose no sleep. He had two and a half hours of uninterrupted opportunity on Friday to convince the committee of the rightness of his point of view, but did not persuade them. He is not persuading the House now.
I forgot to say that the hon. member who sits behind the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) was positive and helpful. Other members, too, were helpful. They asked pertinent questions. Certainly we are open to amendments if they improve the bill; I simply have not seen any so far. That is the problem. Because members propose amendments, that does not mean the amendments are acceptable.
The Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) are given responsibility in the matter of gold. The coin department must judge when we should buy the gold. The Olympic people are not asking the Department of Finance to provide the gold at $42 an ounce. Gold prices fluctuate. We are not suggesting that the Canadian government should do what the United States government did the other day, unload a certain quantity of gold on the market bought between $35 and $42 an ounce. If the Department of Finance were forced to turn over gold for between $35 and $42 an ounce, one could say legitimately that the government is subsidizing the games.
The people in charge of the coin program expect to pay the market price for gold and all other necessary costs, including taxes, minting expenses, and the price of blanks. The Department of Finance has the right to specify how the price is to be determined. How this is to be done was spelled out in the committee by the senior official of the Department of Finance who attended.
We shall acquire the gold when we need it, not before, since we must pay interest. When we need it, we shall notify the Department of Finance. The department will establish the price, which will be based on a five-day moving average price on the London market. Actually, that is just about what the amendment says should be done,
Olympic Financing
although not specifically. You can rest assured that the Department of Finance is giving nothing away to COJO or the Olympics.
As I said, we expect to pay the market price. We shall be buying a large quantity of gold and do not want to depress the market. Therefore we do not want to be specific as to when we shall enter the market. The Department of Finance will determine the price, which will be based on the five-day average price on the London market. That is how we shall determine what we must pay for the gold. This process is above board; it is honest-I use that term for the sake of those who like it. We are looking for nothing, and we are committed to maintaining the high quality of Canadian currency.
Although no one has said so, we have high standards of minting to maintain, whether we mint gold, silver or other coins. The Mint has worked too long to develop one of the outstanding reputations in the world. Those responsible do not intend to sacrifice it simply for the Olympics, which will last only a very short time.
I must again say that I am sorry that I have to recommend that we reject this amendment. I can only assure hon. members once again that if they want to look at the committe hearings of last Friday, it was spelled out very specifically by the Department of Finance officials how the price of gold will be determined when we place our order. I can assure hon. members it is done in such a way that nobody can benefit by it, least of all the Olympics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed amendment stands deferred.
As agreed to earlier by the House, we will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek).
29576-53)4

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing


Otto John Jelinek: That Bill C-63, an act to amend the Olympic (1976) Act, be amended in Clause 4
(a) by striking out lines 23 to 46 inclusive on page 2, lines 1 to 48 inclusive on page 3, lines 1 to 47 inclusive on page 4, lines 1 to 47 inclusive on page 5, and lines 1 to 14 inclusive on page 6; and
(b)	that the figure "17" in line 15 on page 2 and line 17 on page 6 be struck out and the figure "14" substituted therefor.
He said: Mr. Speaker, although I am disappointed that the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) did not even compromise with the coin amendment, I am glad to see we are now over that because I have the coins coming out of everywhere except my pockets.
I would like to deal with the part of the bill of which I believe most members are not even aware. Certainly the public is not aware of it, except for the companies and corporations that will be hurt by the effect of this part of the bill. I refer to seven pages of this eight page bill which deal specifically with trade marks and copyrights.
In his earlier statement the minister said that Bill C-63 is just an amendment to the previous Olympic bill. I would like to point out that the minister must have been referring to the coin portion of it. The amendments in this bill that deal with trade marks and copyrights are by no means amendments to the original Olympic bill. This is in fact a whole new ballgame which is tagged on to Bill C-63.
What comes to mind is why this eleventh hour approach to this whole new idea of trade marks and registration with only a year to go before the games begin. Surely if COJO is to sell its trade marks and the trade marks it proposes to register, it has already done so.
Although the Postmaster General said differently, I am sure he will agree that this part is not an amendment to the original bill. It is tagged on to this bill to amend the Olympic (1976) Act. If there are any irregularities, and I understand there may be some difficulty with my motion No. 3 which has been postponed for the time being, I would say they exist in the printing of this bill. In fact it should not just read "An Act to amend the Olympic (1976) Act", but also "An Act to amend the Trade Marks Act". That is what this part of the bill does more or less.
The urgency is the questionable part of this bill. The committee members who were not aware of the contents of this bill in committee said, "Try to push it through that long committee period because there is some urgency in this affair." Where were those Liberal members for the past six months? Where were they when the silver coin program was falling badly behind and COJO needed further assistance from the federal government?
I stood here and questioned the Postmaster General for the past three or four months, requesting an early statement on the position of the government with regard to supplementary assistance legislation for the Olympic Games. There was no action. I heard no cries from the Liberal backbenchers. I did not even know they were interested in further assisting COJO until I walked into the committee meeting and they said, "Pass this damn thing right now. It's urgent. We have to move."
It is very hard to comprehend why the trade marks part is even in this bill. The minister spoke about bad publicity, and about how bad it is for the Olympic movement and

Montreal. I agree that it is bad. However, who is to blame for the bad publicity?
Montreal and COJO are using money derived as a result of federal legislation, or as direct grants, some $140 million worth. They received close to $500 million in aid as a result of federal legislation and direct grants, yet they have the audacity not to have public tenders for the use of these funds, whether it is for the construction of the Olympic sites or for getting the television rights. They did not use public tenders. The federal government is responsible for making it possible for COJO to reap the benefits of these bills. However, it seems to turn its back and close one or both eyes when it comes to the spending procedures. To have a corporation that utilizes funds which come from the federal government, and for it to have no public tenders on construction and TV rights, and for the government to sit idly by and allow it to happen, is incomprehensible.
The minister asks about the word dishonest. I think there must be something dishonest in this area. Someone must be hiding something, because if someone were not hiding something they would bring everything out into the open and show us what the accounting is.
When the former president of the treasury board read the earlier statement he suggested, for example, that security costs alone would amount to $90 million. I say this only because it all goes hand in hand. This is a direct grant from the federal government, but no one has been able to get a breakdown for this $90 million for a two-week period, no one has been able to find out how these funds are to be spent, let alone the money derived from the coin, stamp, and lottery programs. I call this dishonest on COJO's part, and I call it dishonest in the government's part for not taking the responsibility to look into these matters.
In committee I suggested that because the trade marks and copyright part of the bill was not an amendment to the original Olympics legislation it ought to be separated and dealt with in two parts, one having to do with gold coins, and the other having to do with trade marks. Again, the members on the committee, the Liberals who sat there not knowing what was in the legislation, would not listen to reason.
I have mentioned the fact that Gerry Snyder, vice president of revenue for COJO, was there, but the Liberal members of the committee would not allow him to be a witness. He was right there, and he is the only one who knows all about the affairs of COJO and how the money is spent. He is responsible. He is the vice-president in charge of revenue. We have been asking for an accounting of the way in which COJO is spending its money. I believe that, had there been a public accounting from the beginning, the deficit which is now apparent and which will be experienced at the end of the games could have been reduced.
The evening before the committee met I received some financial documents from Commissioner General Rousseau and I had intended to present them to the committee, to table them for the committee's benefit. Again, the committee was so uninterested in the material I had with
July 8, 1975

regard to the financing of the games that I was not permitted to table it; they did not care to look at some of the figures sent to me by Commissioner General Roger Rousseau.
The Postmaster General knew we had been demanding an accounting from COJO, and on his way out after that long committee meeting he turned round and said that though he had some accounting he would not table it, or show it to the committee, because we had not asked for it. I have said on past occasions, in fairness to the minister, that he has always answered in the best way he could as far as his part of the bill was concerned. But his unwillingness to show the figures in his possession to the committee puzzled me a great deal.
Since I am talking about the committee I should like to put on record a few quotations from the minutes. The first is a question I put to one of the witnesses, Mr. Lafontaine, and his reply.
Why should COJO, in this case, have far more power than any other government agency or any other corporation or business, or any government agency for that matter? I would think if more power were needed government agencies should have more power. But why COJO in this case? Mr. Chairman, a minister should really be here to answer that one-
This prompts me to point out that the whole bill stands in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). The Postmaster General is responsible only for the coin and stamp area. The bill before us, as well as the original bill, go far beyond the coin program. The rights of opposition members of parliament have not been looked after. They did not have an opportunity to question the proper minister. We enjoyed questioning the Postmaster General. He gave us answers. But they dealt with only part of the bill.
The President of the Treasury Board was not present on second reading, and he was never to be seen during the committee stage. He is not here now, yet the bill stands in his name and deals with matters far beyond the area for which the Postmaster General is responsible.
The Postmaster General has said himself that he is responsible only for the coins and stamps, and for distribution. He has done his best. He took over a department which probably matches in chaos only the Department of Transport and I sympathize with him because, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) said, he took over a total mess. Thus, we cannot blame the Postmaster General altogether for failing to achieve what was originally intended as far as the coin program was concerned. Nevertheless, we cannot question him on these other matters, particularly with regard to this motion of mine which relates to the Trade Marks Act.
Let me explain, briefly, what I have in mind. Clause 13 of Bill C-63 reads as follows:
The Olympic Corporation is, and always has been, an organization operated in Canada for the purposes of the Trade Marks Act.
As I understand it, this clause was to stay in the bill and everything else was to be deleted. As I suggest in the motion we are discussing, COJO would be able to get its trade marks, registrations and so on under the Trade
Olympic Financing
Marks Act. I will quote first from the opening paragraph of section 3 of that act:
A trade mark is deemed to have been adopted by a person when he or his predecessor in title commence to use it in Canada or to make it known in Canada or, if he or such predecessor have not previously so used it or made it known, when he or such predecessor filed an application for its registration in Canada.
I move, now, to the pertinent section of the Trade Marks Act, section 9:
No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for . ..
(n) any badge, crest, emblem or mark ...
(iii) adopted and used by any public authority in Canada as an official mark for wares or services
in respect of which the Registrar has, at the request of Her Majesty or of the university or public authority as the case may be, given public notice of its adoption and use;
The reason I quote from the Trade Marks Act is that COJO still has the right to register like any other private company or corporation in Canada. But as the bill now stands, COJO is given unprecedented power to deprive individuals and businesses of certain property rights.
Let me make it very clear that hundreds of manufacturers in this country have been marketing products bearing trade marks that may or may not be similar to the trade marks COJO wants to register in connection with the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal. These products were being distributed long before it was ever known the Olympic games were coming to Montreal. These manufacturers are now faced with the fact that COJO may want to adopt the trade mark that they have been using.
As we heard during committee stage, if the products had been manufactured before June 13 they will be able to continue to manufacture them. But let us remember that manufacturers like to expand their products. Take a clothier, for example, who may have been manufacturing T-shirts for the last 20 years and who uses some crest on them that is pretty identical to one COJO wants to use. He has expanded his line into socks, sweaters, hats, and has spent $20,000 on machinery. Manufacturers of sporting goods fall into the same category.
I suggest that this bill will strongly hurt such businesses. To take an example, Leatherware Limited of Montreal-and there are many others-applied to register crests prior to their knowledge of this bill. They have spent a great deal of money in preparing this crest. All of a sudden they are no longer allowed to continue with their plans to manufacture and distribute the crest, having spent thousands and thousands of dollars on its preparation.
This clause of the bill is putting an unnecessary burden on many businesses and corporations in Canada, and millions of dollars will be lost to the economy as a result. The small businesses will suffer the most.
Mr. Lefebvre is a counsel with the Department of Justice and was a witness before the committee. As reported at page 39:47 of the committee proceedings he said:
I would like to add that if this amendment is to be effective, it is crucial that such power be given because of the short time we have. A

July 8, 1975
Olympic Financing
businessman could come on and leave the market, leaving his goods on the market, and there would not be proper time to go through a lengthy trial or, maybe, to provide all the evidence that would normally be required.
As I read that, Madam Speaker, he wants us to pass this legislation very quickly so as to hurt these businesses and bring them to court. In the same committee meeting it was admitted that there will be many court cases resulting from this legislation. Then I said to Mr. Lefebvre:
I know of an awful lot of businesses that have for years, even prior to knowledge of the Olympics taking place in Canada, used symbols along these lines. They have been using them and, to answer your question, that they are allowed to use it on the products they are using now, I understand that, but a lot of these businesses have planned to expand and broaden their variety of products within a particular class, with intentions of using some of these symbols, and you are seriously going to hurt this expansion process.
Mr. Lefebvre, who as I say is a counsel from the Department of Justice, then said:
Shall we hurt them or hurt COJO?
So again he is admitting we are going to hurt the small businessman. Although I do not think we should hurt COJO, I would also say that we should not hurt the businessmen of this country who are legitimately trying to sell their wares and not to take advantage of the Olympic movement. As I say, reference should be had to section 9 of the Trade Marks Act which I read earlier.
It is a disgrace that we have to debate this question at this point when we are in support of the whole Olympic movement. We want to assist COJO in its financing, but at the same time it is the responsibility of the opposition to protect the taxpayers and businessmen of this country. This is why I say that the government should have made proper provision to cover the situation.
I suggest that the public knew nothing about this trade marks aspect of the bill, and that the majority of the members did not know either. All we heard about was the gold coins. Simpson's has been selling order blanks for gold coins for some three or four months now before this aspect was made public. I am not blaming the Postmaster General. The fault lies with the government which is expecting us to give blanket approval without question.
You know, Madam Speaker, it is really ironic. I have been pressing the government to give some assistance to COJO, and finally when we get this bill in committee stage we are not allowed to ask questions, or we are jeered at when we do so by the Liberal members who sit so smugly opposite. Regardless of what our suggestions may be or what our amendments will be, the government goes ahead and makes a mockery of the committee and the House of Commons, so far as I am concerned.
One of the witnesses before the committee was Mr. N. M. Thurm, Registrar of Trade Marks and Director, Trade Marks Office. He was asked if somebody is in business today and is using that mark quite regularly whether we would be putting him out of business so far as those projects are concerned. He was asked if there is a conflict. He answered, "Quite right, Mr. Chairman".
All these points I make follow along similar lines. I make these points in order to bring out the fact that these witnesses, who are reliable government witnesses, have

contradicted themselves. I have given three or four examples. There were more during the committee stage. This is not a clean bill. There are many discrepancies in it. There were many contradictions before the committee. One can read these contradictions in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee for Thursday and Friday of last week.
I think we know what happened. The mayor of Montreal with his COJO officials came to the government and requested a rubber stamp on some things. That is precisely what has been happening. If the government had its way we would not be here bringing forward some of these facts.
The last example of the ridiculous committee procedure in respect of this bill was when I compared this bill in respect of trade marks to Bill C-2, the competition bill with which in a general way I agree. This is in direct contradiction to the competition bill. All the powers are being given to COJO and are being taken away from the legitimate businesses which were manufacturing before COJO was formed. These manufacturers were manufacturing products which bear some of these symbols, but when I brought up the fact that there was a contradiction between this bill and Bill C-2, the Competition bill, the chairman of the committee flatly stated that that was out of order, and that we were not allowed to compare this bill with another bill, just as he said it was out of order to ask the vice-president of COJO, who was present in the room, to answer questions no one but he could answer.
According to the chairman this was out of order, and the eleven Liberal followers just naturally nodded their heads either because they were sleepy or for some other reason. They could not make a contribution. I repeat that they could have made a contribution by asking for this legislation earlier. We had asked for this legislation to come before the House at a much earlier date. However, everything surrounding the Olympics, so far as the government is concerned, has always had a veil of secrecy of some sort around it. When members of the opposition asked when the bills, this one and the original one, were coming forward, we never received direct answers.
It is ridiculous for the government to say continually it is not involved in the Olympics. It is involved to the tune of perhaps half a billion dollars. There are at least half a dozen ministers and departments directly involved with assisting the games. No one questions this involvement. I think the government should be involved. I think Canadians should be proud of the fact that Canada is to have the Olympic Games. Why should everything be hidden? The Postmaster General questions why we keep asking these questions. I agree that he has not hid things when there have been specific questions, but it is the over-all financial aspect of the Olympics to which I refer.
In closing I should like to say that I am not the only one concerned about this clause in the bill. I have spoken to numerous legal advisers about this, and I am informed that even the Patent and Trade Marks Institute of Canada is quite disturbed about this clause, and that in fact it will be writing the government regarding this clause in the not too distant future.
July 8, 1975

I would wish for a compromise, but I cannot ask this of the Postmaster General because it is not his responsibility. I come back to my original statement. Perhaps the acting Prime Minister could tell us why this clause of the bill is here, and why the powers must be placed in the hands of COJO and taken away from the businesses. Some say this is not unprecedented because there was similar legislation in respect of Expo 67. It is true that there was, but there was also a four-year warning to manufacturers, businessmen, and individuals. Expo 67 we know took place in 1967, but the bill for Expo was introduced four years earlier so there was ample warning. I say this is an unprecedented case. It is a dangerous situation. It is far more dangerous than we realize because it will set a precedent by which corporations and a few government agencies will be able to bypass the Trade Marks Act and make it obsolete. The corporations or agencies will bypass the Trade Marks Act and refer to this bill. So I think we have before us a sad state of affairs. I hope I have been able to point out the inadequacies.
Although this is more or less a finance bill we did not have an opportunity to question the Minister of Finance at the committee stage. This part of the bill is a farce. It has been put together in a hurry. It has been admitted that mistakes were made. If they had been made earlier something would have been known about trade marks. This should have been one of the first pieces of legislation introduced. It should not have been introduced just before the Olympic Games are to take place. I say this part of the bill is shameful.


An hon. Member:: Shameful!


Otto John Jelinek: Yes. It is shameful to hear anyone opposite make such a comment because it is obvious that he has not read this clause.
I am all for assisting COJO and the Montreal Olympics, but not at the expense of manufacturers, and that is what this bill is doing. I hope that the government will in some way amend the bill, and perhaps even take out the retroactivity provision. Only the minister responsible for that part of the bill can do it. Although the Postmaster General is not responsible for this part of the bill, I hope that some action will be taken in this respect.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I count it a privilege to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. I think that if there is a section in the games that can be allocated to jugglers, the mayor of Montreal should be allowed to compete in that sport and I am sure he would run off with the gold medal.
I think it is time we restored some historical perspective to the games. I can imagine the planners of the Olympics in Athens 2,000 years ago being worried about the amphitheatre they would have, and what kind of multimillion dollar project would be needed to stage the games, how many coins they would have to mint, how many stamps they would have to print, and who would get the patent on all the products that would be sold as a result of the staging of the Olympics. It seems to me that the focus has been taken away from the real purpose of the Olympics to
Olympic Financing
the stagecraft, the backdrop, the choreography, rather than physical fitness.
I shoud like to ask the minister if he has figures that would give us a comparison between the money spent on the physical features of the games, on the buildings and the promotion, and the money spent to make our athletes physically fit. How much awareness is there on the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) of the need to assist athletes to maintain physical fitness, and how much is he spending from his department's funds to ensure that the next generation of Canadian men and women will be physically fit? Again the focus is all on the choreography, the materials, the impressions rather than the people. We are worried about the machinery, not the athletes. I must add as an aside that if the athletes have to depend on stamps, they are licked.
I would like to point out also that other hon. members are no doubt getting the same kind of correspondence that I am getting from the corporations of Canada, the bottling companies and so on. One of them writes as follows:
... our hope is that in this way we will not only improve the calibre of the performance of amateurs in Canada but we will be creating an increased awareness of physical fitness.
We have come to a sorry state of affairs when corporations, which incidentally have an invested interest in this program, talk about awareness of physical fitness but the Government of Canada talks about minting coins, slogans, patents, and so forth. To highlight the sorry mess of this whole project I would like to refer hon. members to a headline in the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, June 17. Some interesting statements were made by Mr. Rousseau of the organizing committee. I think he should be quoted in some literary magazine to illustrate some of his redundancies and prophetic fallacies. Let me give you one of the jewels that this gentleman uttered at that particular press conference, and listen to his self-complacency. The article reads in part:
"The games will be self-financing for us, but we'll have to have governments allow us things, that's all," Mr. Rousseau said.
I ask hon. members to put that one together for me. He says it will be self-financing for us but the government will have to give them things, that is all. I would not mind having some programs that are self-financing that way.
Let me give you the second jewel, and I think that perhaps here he missed his beat a little and lapsed into honesty when he said; "We're in shifting sand and we're fighting". The sad thing is that he is not fighting for athletes or for physical fitness, he is fighting for buildings, for the reputation of Montreal, and all the physical things around which the choreography will be staged.
Let me give you another of those jewels. The article states:
He said if journalists hadn't pressed so much to find out the cost of the games four years ago he wouldn't be in a position to have to explain any deficit today.
Is that not beautiful? That is what you call accountability Montreal style. If we would not ask them for facts, they would never have to justify them.
Let me give you one more. The article states:
Mr. Rousseau explained the mayor's figures of last December were lower because the project planners trimmed costs a little this spring.

Olympic Financing
Not even his chronology is right on that one. I would plead with the government to readjust its focus. The Olympics do not need all the trappings that the mayor of Montreal is designing for that project. There is no doubt that the kind of program that would enhance the physical fitness of Canadians is good for all of Canada, and there is no doubt that prestige is on the line, but I would remind the government that also the credibility of Canada is on the line, not so much with the display of the Olympics as with the way in which we handle the Olympics. I plead with the government that we get back to the basics of the Olympics and focus our attention on the welfare of the competitors, on the runners, the wrestlers, the swimmers, and all the other athletes. Let us give them some attention.
We do not need the extravagance that the mayor of Montreal wants for the benefit of Montreal. Let us give the people of Canada a break, let us give the athletes a break, and let us scale down this model and make sure that the focus is back on physical fitness and not so much on the material trappings of the games.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, Bill C-63 and specifically clause 4 gives rise to certain questions which I believe members of the House on behalf of all Canadians must ask very seriously, and possibly these questions should be asked of COJO officials and of the mayor of Montreal every bit as much as of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) whose bill this is, and who wants it passed for obvious reasons.
The whole matter of the Olympics-the financing and the government's involvement-whether we like to admit it or not, is coming back to roost earlier than any of us had expected in 1973 when the original bill was before the House. I want to remind hon. members that in 1973 the situation was very different, and so was the attitude of the government. For those of us who sat on the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates at that time in 1973 when the bill was placed before us respecting the sale of stamps and the minting and sale of Olympic coins and the lottery, it seems that the government members had a very different attitude than the attitude we see today in 1975. I do not believe it is a changing of attitude in respect of financing or in respect of the juggling act which is taking place with regard to financing, but I do believe it has much more to do with the fact that hon. members opposite feel that if they wait it out it will be passed.
What happened in 1973? When the original bill was before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee the government presented to the members of that committee a bill which would authorize the minting of coins, the issuing of stamps, and the national lottery. For a number of days members of the opposition on that committee kept stressing to government members that the bill had to be tightened up, that there was no reporting in the original bill, that there had to be a responsibility and that parliament had to be given facts and figures as to the number of coins minted, and also the ceiling as to the amounts circulated. The Master of the Mint came before us at that time, and he spelled out clearly what would happen.
The Master of the Mint at that point showed that the Mint had received instructions to go ahead with the mint-
July 8, 1975
ing even though the bill was still before us, and I remember one evening very clearly after hours and hours of debate in that committee the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), then the postmaster general, whose bill it was at that time, was pleading with members of his own party to pass our amendments which tightened up the bill and which finally won approval from his party. He pleaded with them to accept those amendments; otherwise the bill would die and COJO could not get on with the job.
I remember that night very clearly, and I know that the members of the government at that time gave in to the pressure of their minister. Why? Because of the lack of their numerical strength in the committee. Today, before the Olympics have taken place, we are already faced with problems of financing COJO. At that time the statements we made we could not base on fact, but we are finding out month after month, as more reports are coming out, that even the members of COJO do not know what are their cost figures.
According to the daily papers COJO does not even know how many tickets it has. In one case they were counted, and in the next case they were not counted. This week, for example, it was learned that a contract has not been signed with the Montreal Forum. It was learned that more seats would have to be erected and that they did not have as many seats as they thought. It has been a case of poor planning.
Then the government for the second time comes before this House and asks us to pass this bill because it is urgent and because the government does not have time on its hands. We are asked not to ask questions, but told that we can ask questions after 1976. That is not good enough.
With regard to the financing of Bill C-63, in 1973 when the original bill was passed there was a ceiling of $250 million placed on the amount of revenue which could accrue to COJO through the sale of coins. The total amount which had to be sold kept increasing due to the price of sterling rising. COJO has not met its objectives, and the projections are that it will not meet its objective of $250 million from those coins.
In the meantime Canadians have been committed to the Olympics. Companies have committed themselves to the Olympics, and many companies have used Olympic symbols or variations thereof to start manufacturing. Many of the companies are already in fact conducting sales. When I got home last weekend I found waiting in the mail a sample of the Olympic crest with the stylized M and the five circles, and a manufacturer was asking me to consider using those for promotional material. I am sure most hon. members received that advertising brochure.
Once Bill C-63 is passed where does this manufacturer stand? He has made an investment. According to the bill before us, he was already doing something illegal back on June 13 of this year. It is a retroactive bill, and the manufacturer, at the time he started the manufacture of those symbols, lapel pins, tiepins or other souvenirs which might be associated with using Olympic symbols prior to June 13 was already doing something illegal, and I know the government, which is in a majority position, thinks it can sit back and it will get its bill through. That is very
July 8, 1975

different from the attitude of the government at the time of the original bill.
Manufacturers have made investments. They are on production runs. There are wholesale distributors, small entrepreneurs, and small shopkeepers who have bought many souvenir articles which have on them the Olympic symbol or a variation thereof, and now all of a sudden the government says, "Oh, no; stop." Surely COJO with all the personnel at its disposal could have thought about its trade marks and proprietary rights much sooner. For instance, clause 4(3) on page 3 of the bill clearly indicates that June 13, 1975, will be the cut off date. What do we do about these people? They have gone ahead and become involved. Many of them are willing to funnel money back into the amateur athletic union and to foster amateur sports, and now the government says it wants passage of this bill.
I would think that the least the government could do would be to look very critically and objectively at the amendments we are putting before it. I submit that the process is no different than it was in 1973 when the opposition had to amend the original bill, and I can appreciate the position of the government on the Olympics, its wanting the Olympics to be a success, and the financing difficulties which have surrounded the Olympics.
The government has brought in a bill in a haphazard way, and when amendments are brought forward to strengthen the bill some government members take the view that the opposition is anti the Olympics. That is the very same argument they used in 1973. Madam Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, tomorrow it will be the intention of the government to call Bill C-66 to amend the Excise Tax Act. It will be our intention to continue Bill C-66 throughout the ensuing days until it is completed, except that on Thursday afternoon we will complete Bill C-8, which is subject to an order of the House.


Mr. Hargrave:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he intends to bring Bill C-50 back on Thursday as well?


Mitchell William Sharp: I had hoped that we would have made more progress today. I am afraid that many of these bills which we would like to see disposed of may have to be held for quite some time.


Mr. Baldwin:: They wouldn't if we could get a few amendments accepted over there. Don't be so stubborn.


An hon. Member:: Write better bills.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, it may be the opinion on the government side of this House that the subject to which I am addressing myself this evening is no longer a matter of concern and that it is a past issue. I refer to my question which was addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and answered by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) with reference to the conduct of the President of Uganda.
I should like to draw attention to the innocuous, watered down, waffling, response of the minister. I asked what action the government was prepared to take. I suggested that one of the avenues of applied muscle would be CIDA, and the response I received was that he was not sure if it would be an appropriate action for Canada to take when we disagree with the actions of another government.
I must assume from that statement that the minister did disagree with the actions of the President of Uganda so I must ask him he disagreed, if the cabinet disagreed, if government disagreed and certainly if Canadians disagreed, what action did he take-what action did we take?
We understand that CIDA has wound down in Uganda. I would be the last person to suggest we use the muscle, the threat of withdrawal of aid from a nation filled with hundreds of thousands of wretched people living under the dictatorship of this man. I would point out that Canada enjoys a good reputation in Uganda due to our CIDA program. Certainly if a senior commonwealth country ever had an opportunity to extend a little bit of diplomacy and to do a service for Great Britain and for that miserable fellow with the dealth penalty hanging over his head, this country had that opportunity. Like so many other things, however, when it comes to diplomacy this country gives no demonstration of intestinal fortitude.
What was the real reason that the President of Uganda decided to back down? Was it because of our diplomacy? He managed to get Britain where he wanted it. When Britain sent its envoys to Uganda where did they find the president? Waiting for them in a grass hut. The entrance to this hut was about two feet high so that the envoys were subjected to the demeaning posture of getting down on their hands and knees in order to enter the hut to see the president. Are we going to accept that kind of thinking from a man who is ruling a country in an insane manner?
The real reason that President Amin succumbed was not due to the pressure from Britain or from this country. It
7382

July 8, 1975
Adjournment Debate
was solely because of the pressures applied by other African nations who were due to assemble in Kampala and did not want to be embarrassed by this horrible situation.
The President of the Privy Council should be made aware, if he is not already, that one commentator speaking on a Canadian network indicated that he has known President Amin for some time and that there is every likelihood that this man suffers from a very serious debilitating mind-warping social disease. I am not suggesting this is true, but it has been strongly indicated.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would ask the President of the Privy Council when we can expect a demonstration of intestinal fortitude and less cotton candy diplomacy. Is he prepared to speak out, or is Canada prepared to speak out at the United Nations about the conduct of this nation? It is all very well for countries to condemn Rhodesia and South Africa, but now the shoe is on the other foot. Are we to sit back and allow this to happen to nationals of other countries who happen to be in a black nation?


Herb Breau: Madam Speaker, if I may comment on what the hon. member said at the end of his speech, I assure him that Canada will continue to intervene in foreign affairs productively, and not with rhetoric. This government is doing what it considers must be done, although its actions are not necessarily those the hon. member is suggesting.


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Herb Breau: The hon. member suggests I should mention one thing the government has done. Let me point to what it has done for some years on Cyprus. That has saved lives. The government does not indulge in rhetoric, and do what the hon. member suggests it ought to do. It acted by exercising cool, rational diplomacy.
The Canadian government has closely followed the events surrounding the imprisonment and sentencing of Mr. Dennis Hills. As Mr. Hills is a citizen of the United Kingdom, his case is primarily of concern to the British and Ugandan governments. Nonetheless, the question has been of great interest to us for evident humanitarian reasons.
With regard to the question of CIDA aid to Uganda, our aid program has been maintained at a very modest level since 1972. The program has consisted primarily of scholarship support to Uganda students studying in Canada and in African countries other than Uganda. No new aid commitments have been made since 1972. The Canadian government does not feel that it would be acceptable policy to use our aid programs to influence the actions of foreign governments. We do not believe that humanitarian ends would be well served, in the long run, by such a policy.
The government did express to the Ugandan authorities, through diplomatic channels, our hope that Mr. Hills' life would be spared. At about the same time it was learned that Mr. Hills' sentence would not be carried out. We informed the Ugandan authorities of our satisfaction with this decision. Finally, the government fully intends to keep abreast of any further developments.


NATIONAL PARKS-BANFF-REQUEST NEW HOUSING BE MADE AVAILABLE IN TOWN
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this evening I shall speak briefly about housing in a community which is virtually under the complete control of the Government of Canada. I am speaking of the town site in the national park of Banff, and also, to a small degree, of the one in Jasper.
As I begin to speak I must express some unhappiness. I am addressing my remarks not to the minister concerned, not even to the parliamentary secretary who is concerned, but to a representative of the government who, so far as I know, has never been in one of those national parks.


Herb Breau: He has been there.


Charles Joseph Clark: All right; he has been there.
The problem of housing in the national parks involves a conflict which is recognized by all. If there is too much growth, that very growth jeopardizes park values and the purposes for which the national parks were established. But if there are too few houses, and there are in Banff, that shortage can create unacceptable crowding, social problems, and tension such as is being experienced now, unfortunately, in that community.
Instead of responding to the request of the Banff Advisory Council-the closest thing they have to a government in Banff, because of the Government of Canada's insistence on retaining control of such momentous matters as the licensing of dogs in the town-the minister replied, by and large, that because a new master plan is being developed it would be better to meet the housing problems of Banff by having people move to Canmore, which is just outside the park, perhaps 20 minutes drive away, and have them commute to the park. That was the minister's policy for some time. The town of Canmore was not too happy with it, because it had a serious effect on its future. That policy turned the town more and more into a bedroom town, into a simple dormitory. Secondly, it very seriously jeopardized and undercut its tax base.
The town council of Canmore, having more power in these matters than the elected officials of Banff, said to the minister "No. We are not going to let you do that. We are not going to let the new residential lots in our town be available to people who do not live and work here." That has thrown quite a curve into the minister's plans of trying to meet the housing problems of Banff by shunting them off to another community.
That led to my question in the House almost a month ago as to whether the minister was prepared to give some consideration on a fresh basis, in line with the decision by the town council of Canmore, to allowing the release of some new lots and the building of some new houses immediately in Banff so that there could be some response to a housing pressure and a housing shortage that would not be tolerated by most members of this House if they, the communities in which they live, or their constituencies faced it.
July 8, 1975

So far the minister has made no reply to what I think is a reasonable request. Since the escape route he envisaged for the poor people of Banff has been understandably cut off, he should provide some means for them to find housing in their own community. I hope that in the response that is read into the record tonight there will be some indication that the minister will reconsider his position and provide for the housing needs of Banff.
This problem of accommodation for individuals who need to reside in a national park has arisen freshly in a townsite in a major national park in my constituency, namely, Jasper. There has been there an indication of at least insensitivity by the Government of Canada to the housing problem faced by the people in this townsite.
After a great deal of pressure, 13 lots were released in Jasper last October. Hon. members must understand that you can only lease land in a national park. You cannot buy it. You pay a land rental.
Land rentals in Jasper were low in October when the lots were released. The 13 couples or individuals who came into those lots made their borrowing plans. Many worked for the railway and many for the national parks. They are not people with great incomes. They made their plans on the basis of a relatively low land rental. In June, a month before they contemplated starting construction, they were told the land rental would increase, in some cases by ten times. That is not the sort of load on the pocket book many of us can contemplate without a very real concern.
After some meetings in Jasper early last week a petition was circulated very quickly because the time was short. I had the opportunity earlier today to hand it to the minister, with a thousand signatures, asking relief for that particularly unfair escalation of land rentals in Jasper.
They are both symbols of the same problems. The same pressures upon housing are faced by people who need to reside in national parks. At the moment there is not a satisfactory response to that immediate problem. There is, and I give the minister and particularly his officials credit, an initiative finally to begin the hard work of long range planning and establishing effective local government. However, we cannot expect individuals who need a place to house their children to wait forever for the finishing of long range plans. We need housing now. I hope the parliamentary secretary will indicate some response.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, the size of the town-site and the issues of housing for those who work in Banff are important questions facing Parks Canada.
The current position of the program is to limit the size of the townsite through adequate planning controls while simultaneously encouraging complementary developments in Canmore. We consider that adequate housing for those who have a need to reside in Banff in order to provide essential park visitor services should be made available.
On April 3 the Ministry Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) met with Mayor Klotz and members of the Canmore Council and affirmed the following: our wish to limit the growth of Banff; the department's wish to encourage the development of visitor services outside the park; the department's willingness to relocate certain Parks Canada operations outside the park;
Adjournment Debate
the department's intention to encourage the relocation of light service industry from inside the park to outside the park; the department's offer to assist the town in developing a plan which could include lands straddling the trans-Canada highway owned by the federal government.
The situation in Canmore is presently as follows: Alberta Housing Corporation is planning to develop 63 housing lots and 20 mobile homesites in Canmore this year; persons employed in Banff national park but residing in Canmore and who do not already own property in Canmore will be eligible for the lottery draw for lots; the province has agreed to fund a plan for Canmore; the Calgary Regional Planning Commission is expected to undertake a study to be completed in one year; a 36-unit apartment building will be constructed in Canmore in 1975.
The minister met with Alberta cabinet ministers on May 1, 1975, at which time the development of Canmore was discussed. A joint Canada-Alberta consultative committee on parks was established with planning for Canmore to be on its first agenda. This meeting will be held soon.
On May 13 the Canmore Council passed a motion asking Alberta to assist the town in becoming developed as a park visitor service centre.
In order to remedy temporarily the housing requirements in Banff the area known locally as "Old Block S" has been made available to employers for the siting of dormitory style staff trailers for the summer of 1975. For the summer of 1976, approximately 80 housing units will be built on "Old Block S". Services will be installed this fall and housing construction started by spring.
The Canadian Restaurant Association will be providing approximately 60 units of one and two bedroom apartments. Financing is just now being completed. Construction will begin later this summer, with occupancy expected by July, 1976.
A number of studies are under way in Banff which will influence the Banff townsite and the housing issue: Dr. Oberlander is working on an urban development plan for Banff. Phase I, which involves the preparation of alternative planning concepts for Banff, will be presented to the Banff Advisory Council on July 21; Phase II, involving the preparation of a detailed plan based on the planning concept resulting from Phase I will begin immediately thereafter; a study is under way to find means to resolve the problem that employees have in renting accommodation. Frequently they are evicted in June in order that the space can be rented to park visitors during the summer months. Hopefully steps can be taken to avoid this situation. Another study is looking into the non-resident use of leased properties in Banff. This is the case where the property is used as a cottage and is not available for residents providing park services.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-REASON FOR PAROLE OF MR. GLEN JANSEN-POSSIBLE RESTORATION OF AMOUNTS CUT FROM DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET
John Douglas Reynolds: Madam Speaker, a three-time parole violator sought in connection with the June 24 Eaton's parking lot murder of
29576-54'/2

July 8, 1975
Adjournment Debate
Mrs. Freda Buxbaum is still at large today and angry police officers claim he is just laughing at them.
The fugitive is Glen Wayne Jansen, 24, who was on parole and living at the Burrard Rehabilitation Centre at the time of the murder. Mrs. Buxbaum, 42, was strangled in the underground parking garage at the Civic Centre when she was on a shopping trip for the wedding of her only daughter.
Jansen has been in and out of jail since he was 17. He has escaped from custody twice and been recaptured. He has been paroled twice before-in 1969 and 1970-and both times the parole was revoked for violations. Jansen also failed to report back to the Burrard Centre on June 25. A warrant has been issued by the National Parole Service charging him with being unlawfully at large.
Last March, while living at the Burrard Centre located at the YMCA, Jansen was charged with auto theft and possessing stolen property. He was arrested at the YMCA and later released on $5,000 bail posted by a girl friend. He was due for trial Thursday, but was allowed to continue living at the Burrard Centre.
Police said he was employed by the city as a labourer. He injured a foot several weeks ago and has been on compensation.
Police are baffled about how Jansen managed to get so many paroles while being convicted on one charge after another. They hope to find out when he is caught, but one angry officer said; "He's just laughing at us."
Sergeant Paul Starek, head of the Burnaby RCMP, general investigation section, today slammed the parole system for allowing dangerous people out on parole.
Starek said parole officials deal with a criminal under clinical conditions when the criminal is at his most persuasive.
"I've talked to a lot of convicts over the past 25 years and this is what they've told me", Starek said. "They upgrade their education, join various prison committees and try to convince prison and parole officials that they've changed. I've talked to a number of parole officials and when I suggest these people should be held in custody for the protection of society they seem to be amazed at me and wonder where I've come from. Sometimes I almost think I've been around too long." Starek said the ease with which these convicts get out on parole frequently causes difficulty for police investigating crimes.
We'll think of a suspect and somebody will say, 'No, he's in custody', so we eliminate that person as a suspect. Later we find that the person was out on parole at the time of the offence.
"They just do not want to keep people in prison any more. Our night patrols are checking three and four people on the streets at a time who are not supposed to be there. You cannot tell me a parolee out at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. is there to do society any good." Starek charged that the parole service is also understaffed. "They have no control at all", he said.

Jansen, otherwise known as Robert Allan Street, is six foot one, weighs 185 pounds and has blue eyes and dark blond hair. He was last seen in Penticton a couple of days ago.
This issue is a very serious one, Madam Speaker. The people not only of British Columbia but the people of Canada are concerned about the activities not only of our penitentiaries, where we have had some problems in the past few weeks, but also the parole system. I can remember mentioning a number of months ago in this House about the towers in the British Columbia penitentiary, and how they should put some dummies in the towers if the minister didn't have enough money to put some people there for security. The minister made quite a joke of it but this man has been convicted so many times of so many offences, and was only convicted last in 1972 when he was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. He was convicted of kidnapping and robbery and sentenced to seven years on both charges. In 1972 he was walking the streets on day parole, and while he is on day parole he is arrested on another charge, and is still allowed to walk the streets instead of being put back into a penitentiary. Now he is suspected of one of the worst crimes to hit our city in the past year.


An hon. Member:: Now we know where the dummies are.


John Douglas Reynolds: The hon. member says we know where the dummies are, Madam Speaker, and I happen to agree with him. I have the greatest respect for the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), but to defend the actions of the parole board as he did in this instance is inexcusable. He also defended the actions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when I asked him this morning about the cutbacks and whether they had to do with security. I hope tomorrow morning the Solicitor General will retract that statement in the House because I am sure he did not mean to mislead the House.
When the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) spoke last week, he mentioned the cuts in the budget. Some $4 million in the Solicitor General's budget is cut and there is $4 million in the RCMP budget that is going to be cut. Certainly the RCMP offers security for the Canadian people, but the major cut is the $8 million in the construction of penal institutions, and that certainly has to do with security. In British Columbia we need a new maximum security institution and I would like to know where that $8 million is going. I hope the Solicitor General will withdraw that statement tomorrow because this is a serious issue. We cannot afford to have money taken from the budget of the Solicitor General's department, a department that the government is having so much trouble with in this parliament as in past years. We need more money in that department. There are no members of this House, as he well knows, Madam Speaker, who will argue with any increase in government expenditures in the Solicitor General's department that will improve the safety of the people of Canada, who right now are not getting the security that they need or require.


Charles Robert Turner: Madam Speaker, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-
July 8, 1975

Delta (Mr. Reynolds) concerning Mr. Glen Jansen, may I state that this man was serving an aggregate term of eight years, four months and two days for kidnapping and armed robbery starting in February, 1971. Before being sentenced to penitentiary, he had been paroled twice while serving short sentences in provincial institutions. Although during his last incarceration he appeared to have gained insight into his problem and made efforts at rehabilitating himself, the board did not see fit to grant parole at his eligibility date which had been set, according to law, at November 22, 1973. The National Parole Board granted him a day parole to a community correctional centre in October, 1974, for a period of four months, which was renewed on a few occasions. He was working for the Vancouver city works department, and reports from the Burrard Centre were positive.
He did not return to his institution at his curfew time on June 25 and was declared unlawfully at large and his day parole was terminated. It is true that he is a suspect in the murder of Mrs. Freda Boxbaum. However, he has not been charged to date.
Both the Chairman of the Parole Board and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the board takes great care in granting parole. When making a decision as to whether parole should be granted or not, the National Parole Board and the parole service hold an appreciable amount of background information on each parole applicant which includes: first, a police report containing the circumstances surrounding the investigation as well as recommendations as to whether the person convicted should be granted parole; second, a copy of the criminal record based on fingerprints; third, a complete personal and family history; fourth, detailed reports on the individual's day to
Adjournment Debate
day activities within the penal institution; fifth, psychological evaluations prepared by institutional authorities; sixth, a thorough assessment of what is available to the individual in the community where he is planning to live following release. In addition each case is individualized by following up any special factors which appear to require attention.
Let me state that the National Parole Board is seized with an onerous responsibility. On one hand they are required by law to use parole as an aid in the re-integration of inmates into society. On the other hand they must ensure the protection of the community. In trying to exercise their discretion to meet these two goals, they are faced with a particularly difficult assignment, namely, attempting to anticipate the future behaviour of those persons they place on parole. For this reason they are especially cautious in extending parole to individuals whose behaviour suggests that they might be a threat to the community.
As for the recent budget cuts, the cutback has been for the most part with respect to two new institutions, but we are still proceeding with several other priority institutions. In any event I would like to point out that the building program of the Canadian Penitentiary Service has not been progressing at the rate we had anticipated because of problems of site selection and local approval.
I can assure the House that there will be no relaxation of security within the Canadian Penitentiary Service as a result of the budget cuts. The internal security arrangements in penitentiaries are currently under close examination, and all necessary and possible steps will be taken to ensure an adequate level of security, especially to the staff who have day to day contact with inmates.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Wednesday, July 9, 1975