1975-07-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The motion speaks for itself. I hope the House will support it. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow:)
That this House, aware of the special burden imposed on old age pensioners by the inordinate rise in the cost of food as reported today by Statistics Canada, calls on the government to take whatever steps are necessary to provide a substantial increase in the basic amount of the Old Age Security pension.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion proposed 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.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because death certificates have not been issued to date for those who died in the Panarctic airplane crash, and as the inquest seems to have reached an impasse in securing all the necessary information, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the House request the minister to hold another inquest in the appropriate province in order that the co-pilot and flight engineer can be subpoenaed to appear.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Considering the impact the 1.5 increase in the Consumer Price Index announced today by Statistics Canada and the government's budgetary thrust will have on low income earners and pensioners in Canada, and as the Conference Board of Canada predicts that the budget will raise the Consumer Price Index an additional 1.7 per cent, will the minister reconsider some budgetary measures which weight so heavily and cruelly on the poor and pensioners of this country?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are all disturbed by the abrupt increase shown by the price index this morning. Three fifths of the increase is directly attributable to the higher prices of food products, particularly to the 18 per cent increase in beef prices. As for the budgetary policy of the government, that is currently before the House and was set forth two weeks ago.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As food prices have increased substantially, something to which the minister alluded, the increase of 3.3 per cent last month being the largest increase in three years, and as, under the government's current budgetary proposals now before the House, unemployment insurance benefits for low income earners are to be reduced and old age pensioners are to be eliminated from unemployment insurance rolls, their incomes thereby being substantially reduced, what measures is the minister prepared to consider, in view of the substantially increased price of food, in order to bring relief to pensioners and low income earners of this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question. He is fully entitled to argue it in debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, fortunately the people of Canada do not accept the minister or his budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 11, 1975
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSALS OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE TO CONTROL FOOD PRICE INCREASES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture? As food prices increased substantially, by 3.3 per cent last month, and as this price rise will be aggravated by the Minister of Finance's budgetary proposals for increasing the price of fuel and gasoline, is the minister prepared to tell the House what is the position of the so-called interdepartmental committee of senior officials which was set up to consider the matter of food; also, has this committee put forward long-term, comprehensive and cohesive national food policies which will counteract the disastrous ad hoc policies of the Minister of Agriculture?
[DOT] lino)


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has to be realistic and recognize facts. The food producers are subject to extra costs the same as anyone else in this nation, and that includes the handlers. These are there. They have to be recognized. We have to make sure we keep producers in business. We have to keep them producing food or we will have the same situation that occurred in the pork industry where people went out of business because the returns just were not there. There was no security for them. Consumers are now paying a higher price for pork than they have paid in the history of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Don Valley.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister did not answer my question, a favourite trick of his. Where is the interdepartmental food co-ordinating committee?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the committee is active. I can say this, if the hon. member has any constructive suggestions, we would like to hear them.


James Aloysius McGrath: I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture do us all a favour and resign forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that in most industrialized countries of the world the rate of inflation has declined, contrary to the trend in Canada, and given the fact that the minister has put such emphasis on the role of international forces in creating inflation, when does he expect the decline in the inflation rate of

other countries will have an impact on the inflation rate in this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member's preamble. I set forth the matter as fully as I could to the House two weeks ago.


EFFECT OF GASOLINE TAX ON INFLATION-SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION
James McPhail Gillies: Given the fact that the budget is considered by most observers to be highly inflationary, and given the fact that the inflation rate is obviously higher than he had anticipated when he brought down the budget, will the minister give some consideration to re-examining some of the measures in the budget, particularly the ten cent gasoline excise tax which will add another point and a half to the inflation rate in August or September? Will the minister give some consideration to changing his views about some of the measures in the budget before this parliament rises?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said in the budget debate and since that there would undoubtedly be some short-term adverse economic effects as a result of the budget, including against the cost of living and the growth potential of the economy, but that we had to recognize that we in this country are still enjoying oil prices lower than those of any other industrialized country in the world. I said that in order to achieve the medium and long-term prospects of the country in bringing in new energy reserves, the country would have to accept the short-term adverse effects for the medium and long-term benefits that I set forth in the budget. The ten cent tax which we are now debating in this House is necessary in order to preserve a national oil price of $8 a barrel against a world price of $12 a barrel. It is because of these reasons these measures were taken.


GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO CONTROL INFLATION-POSSIBILITY OF PROCEEDING WITH VOLUNTARY RESTRAINT PROGRAM
James McPhail Gillies: Given the fact that inflation rates are higher in Canada now than they have possibly ever been in history, and given the fact that the budget is inflationary and will add to it, can the minister tell us what the government will be doing over the recess to try to get inflation under control? More specifically, is the minister going to proceed and push hard to try to get his voluntary restraint program in operation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is again wrong in his premise. Even with the abrupt increase in the price index announced this morning, the year over year increase, while higher than that in May, is lower than that of any month in the last 12.
July 11, 1975


SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF IMPOSITION OF GASOLINE TAX-GOVERNMENT MEASURE TO SLOW INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The increase in the cost of living last month of l'A per cent was the largest single increase in over three years. Since the ten cent a gallon excise tax is a tax at the wholesale level and the $1.50 increase in the price per barrel of oil is at the wellhead, which means that the consumer will probably pay an increase of 18 cents a gallon which will add another 2 per cent to the cost of living, will the minister reconsider his proposal to impose this price increase on the Canadian public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With due respect, that is the third time the minister has been asked to reconsider his budgetary proposals. I think we have to get on to a new question.


David Orlikow: Will the minister tell us what, if anything, he intends to do, if not to stop the increase in the cost of living, to at least slow down the rate at which it is increasing.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to analyse the figures as they were announced this morning. 1 said that three-fifths of that increase was directly attributable to food prices. Food prices jumped by 3.3 per cent which is more than six times the average increase since the beginning of the year, primarily because of fast rising prices for beef, pork, fresh fruit and vegetables. The non-food price index moved up by .08 per cent maintaining almost the same rate of change experienced during the past six months. So the abrupt change in the trend announced this morning is directly attributable to rising food prices.


David Orlikow: The President of the Manitoba Pool Elevators said last week that the increase in the price of oil will show up, not only in the price of gasoline used by farmers but in increased prices for fertilizers and everything else farmers use to produce the food Canadians need. This being the case, the increase in food prices to which the minister has just alluded will be even sharper next year unless the minister rescinds the proposed increase in the price of oil. I ask the minister to give consideration to these factors.


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman ought to be completely accurate in what he is saying. In moving the base price for oil to $8 a barrel from $6.50 we are still paying only two-thirds of the world price. It is quite clear, too, that the 10 per cent excise tax on gas does not apply to farm production.
Oral Questions


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since everyone, inlcuding the government, is looking for formulas to fight inflation and to help families pull through this difficult period, would the Minister consider recommending to his colleagues of the cabinet a consumer discount of 10 cents or 8 cents a liter for fluid milk in order to enable the larger families who consume the most milk to increase their income without it being necessary for this increase to be made through a wage increase so as to prevent prices from increasing while still helping those families?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is to promote an increase in the income of its citizens, either through higher wages, or through higher transfer payments for those of low income, rather than by a series of subsidies for specific purposes.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Since such an action was well received when it was first established in 1972 by the government and as representations are still being made today, can the minister tell the House if he himself is receiving representation on this matter from consumer or producer organizations?


Marc Lalonde: I have received a certain number of representations, Mr. Speaker, but my answer is the same as the one I gave to the hon. member, namely that we are more interested in providing an increase in the income of underprivileged people in particular rather than in giving subsidies to the whole population, including those who do not need it or who can well afford to pay the costs of the services and goods they consume.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: question to the Acting Prime Minister respecting the 1975 United Nations Conference on Criminology. It arises from the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House on July 4 that a minister of the Ontario government personally extended an invitation for the holding of the conference in Toronto, and the Prime Minister's words in the House yesterday-"Mr. Grossman of the Ontario government stuck his head out and invited this conference to come to Canada in the first place." Does the Acting Prime Minister deny that approval was given to the Solicitor General of Canada in January of 1970 to be the host of the 1975 UN

July 11, 1975
Oral Questions
conference on criminology, and that the invitation was extended on behalf of the Canadian delegation at the 1970 UN conference on criminology which was held in August, some six months after January 1970 when approval was given to the Solicitor General for Canada to be the host?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is, of course, the only authority that could invite the conference to come to Canada. I would remind the hon. gentleman, however, that it was at the invitation of the government of Ontario that we extended this invitation. They said that they would like to have the conference in Toronto and, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, this is the kind of co-operation that we are trying to maintain with the province.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister deny that Mr. Grossman extended the invitation at the August 1970 conference, speaking on behalf of the Canadian delegation and in that sense for Canada, because of the absence of the Canadian minister who was supposed to be leading the delegation, no doubt for urgent reasons?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to prove.


Mr. Nowlan:: The truth.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian government, of course, takes responsibility for inviting conferences of the United Nations to be held in Canada, but I repeat that the government of Ontario suggested to the Canadian government that they would like to be host, and indeed at that time offered to take part in the hospitality and other arrangements that had to be made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday that "Mr. Grossman of the Ontario government stuck his head out and invited this conference to come to Canada in the first place", I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he has any possible explanation for this apparent misleading of the House by the Prime Minister giving the impression that the invitation was extended by Mr. Grossman on his own, whereas in fact, as the Acting Prime Minister has admitted this morning, the government of Canada fully authorized the Canadian delegation to issue the invitation and Mr. Grossman was speaking only on behalf of the Canadian delegation because of the absence of the Canadian minister. Has the Acting Prime Minister any possible explanation to give the House of this apparent effort of the Prime Minister to mislead the House in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister was quite right to have pointed out to this House that the Ontario government, which is now suggesting it does not want the conference to be held in Canada, was the government that originally suggested to the federal government that such invitation should be extended to hold the conference in Toronto, the capital of the province of Ontario.



SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS OIL MORE IMPORTANT THAN ISRAEL

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The explanation given by the Acting Prime Minister is, of course, as fatuous as it is untrue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Arafat is head of the PLO today and has been for the last year or so, though as an organization the PLO was not in existence in 1970. The Acting Prime Minister asks: Well, what can we do? I would ask him whether the answers he gave the Leader of the Opposition are not consistent with the stand taken by the government of Canada in abstaining from voting when the question arose in the United Nations as to whether Arafat should be permitted to appear before the United Nations? At that time Canada's strong stand was to abstain. Then, when there was a resolution critical of Israel Canada abstained. Will the Acting Prime Minister not come clean and admit that the situation is that while the government of Canada pretends it is favourable toward Israel it considers oil more important than Israel?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a despicable suggestion by the right hon. member for Prince Albert who knows that Canada-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not as despicable as the Prime Minister was yesterday.


Mitchell William Sharp: -places its moral principles ahead of any consideration such as he has raised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would I be wrong to suggest after the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday, that from now on answers given in the House will not be based on whether they are true or false, but on whether they are true or "Trudeau"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



AIRPORTS


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Ontario Minister of Transport tabled a letter in the legislature seeking a delay in the construction of the Pickering airport on the ground that the province of Ontario will not be prepared to spend money for the access highways. Can the Minister of Transport say whether he regards this as a reasonable basis to delay the airport construction, or will he more correctly view it as a further desperate attempt to prop up the political fortunes of the already discredited Davis regime?
July 11, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Argumentative questions can come from either side of the House.


An hon. Member:: But some are based on fact.



FINANCE


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, as the spending budget of the Minister of Finance contemplates a 100 per cent increase in the air transportation tax, and bearing in mind the minister's statement that the air transportation tax increase is necessary to offset heavy deficits in airport construction and operations, would the Minister of Finance indicate if cutbacks in such airport construction are under consideration and, in particular, is he aware that if the Pickering airport development scheme is scrapped the savings in that cost alone would be enough to offset the air transportation tax?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Minister of Transport and I will be allowed to respond to both questions put by the hon. member for York-Simcoe and by the hon. member for Mississauga at the same time. I would be glad to answer in detail when we get to the bill currently before the House.



AIRPORTS


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact it is now apparent that the Pickering airport if built may be sitting in splendid isolation with no suitable roads to it or services, will the minister indicate if consideration is being given to shelving plans for the construction of this unfortunate mistake and, if so, may we expect to hear from the government immediately that it does not plan to go ahead with the scheme?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Far far away there was a prince and a princess.


Jean Marchand: -an agreement was signed between the government of Ontario and the present government to build an airport at Pickering. It was a perfect agreement. I have the text here. They have changed their minds since for reasons which I do not know. Mr. Rhodes
Oral Questions
in his telex said, "at this time". He does not say we should not proceed with the airport. What does it mean? In my letter to Mr. Davis I offered to meet Mr. Rhodes to discuss all those details. We will meet and discuss that because I do not know exactly what he means when he says "at this time". Is it a month, six months or a year? I do not know. He would like to discuss with us other facilities for any eventual airport. I do not intend to do anything before I meet with Mr. Rhodes and his men. I hope we will reach an agreement between two civilized governments.



PICKERING-INQUIRY WHETHER METPAC COMMITTEE HAS RECOMMENDED AGAINST CONSTRUCTION

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. As the government pretends to be a government of restraint and it is reported that Metro Toronto Liberal backbenchers have constituted themselves as a committee to be known as Metpac in the hope they can lessen their bludgeoning by cabinet on local Toronto issues, would the Acting Prime Minister indicate if this newly constituted group has made any recommendation to cabinet concerning Pickering airport and in particular has it recommended, at least as an expenditure saving device, the discontinuance of this needless development?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Metpac is a very informal group of Liberal members. I would remind my hon. friend that we have most of the seats in Toronto, so we are representative of Toronto. This is not a committee made up only of backbenchers. It includes cabinet ministers. We have many interesting discussions. We discussed the Pickering airport and many other matters. It is a very useful forum. I regret very much that we do not have a representative from the constituency of the hon. member.



PICKERING-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO CONSTRUCT

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that the council of the city of Toronto unanimously on February 5 and 6 opposed the expenditure of public funds on a second airport in the area, and the chairman of Metro Toronto has expressed the same view, and in light of the fact that the province of Ontario has now refused to provide the necessary roads and services for the Pickering airport and because it is clearly indicated that what the minister told us about a one runway airport is not true and that it is planned to expand the airport, in view of these things will the minister, in light of his promises and those of the Prime Minister, now undertake to review the whole project and seriously consider abandoning or postponing it and so live up to the words he and the Prime Minister expressed in this House?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, when the agreement was signed between the government of Ontario and the federal government we thought that it was a serious agreement and that it meant something. Today, they have decided to change their minds and want to meet with us. I have no objection to

July 11, 1975
Oral Questions
that. I understand that they can change their minds. Before I make a decision I think cabinet will have to make a decision on this and after that I think we will have to meet with the government of Ontario. Because of the reaction on the other side of the House, I think I will have to abandon the Calgary airport too.



PICKERING-INQUIRY WHETHER CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO STUDY KNOWN AS &quot;METROPOLITAN TORONTO AIRPORT REVIEW&quot;

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether in this whole process he has paid the slightest attention to the unanimous vote of the council of the city of Toronto. I would also like to ask him whether he has available to him the study commissioned by the government of Ontario known as the Metropolitan Toronto Airport Review which I understand is strongly and devastatingly against pursuing the project and whether he has taken that into account in his decision?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Hellyer, a former Conservative member-


An hon. Member:: And a former Liberal.


Jean Marchand: -decided there should be a Pickering airport and made the recommendation to cabinet everybody was in perfect agreement. We took into account not only the resolutions passed by all the bodies mentioned by the hon. member but even instituted a special inquiry in order to have the opinion of the people. So, I think if there is a government which really took into account the reaction of the people it is this government and this minister of transport. At this moment I think I will have to meet, after authorization by cabinet, with the government of Ontario to discuss this problem again, and after that I will tell you what the decision will be.


Mr. Grafftey:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Yesterday afternoon, the Canadian Medical Association clearly stated that if the policy of the Minister of Finance for the financing of public health was adopted, medical services would quickly deteriorate. My question is as follows: Is the minister now willing to negotiate with the provinces a realistic agreement for the financing of public health?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is practically the same question as the one I answered. I will be pleased, however, to send to the hon. member a copy of the release of the Canadian Medical Association.

[DOT] (U40)



PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT AT JAMES BAY-ALLEGED CONFLICT ON ADEQUACY OF FEASIBILITY STUDY-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF STUDY

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that on July 3, 1975, the minister said that the feasibility study of the James Bay enriched uranium proposal had not addressed itself to questions he thought to be most important in this regard and that more elaborate studies should be made of this proposal, thus indicating the inadequacy of the study as a basis for a decision, and in view of the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister stated he found the same feasibility study to indicate that the case against the enriched uranium plant was not clearcut and that he was prepared to give serious consideration to it, thus indicating he found the study adequate for government purposes-



SUGGESTED RENEGOTIATION OF MEDICARE AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES

William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Given yesterday afternoon's statement by the Canadian Medical Association that if the finance minister's policy poncerning the financing of medicare were passed the quality of medical services would deteriorate, is the minister now prepared to negotiate without delay with the provinces to reach realistic arrangements on public health financing?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have before me the statement made by the Canadian Medical Association and I do not see in it anything similar to what the hon. member has just said.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a question to put?


Miss MacDonald:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Given this serious conflict of opinion concerning the feasibility study, would the minister be prepared to table this document immediately so that all members can resolve for themselves which of these two opinions, if either, is in the national interest?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's attempt to interpret the Prime Minister yesterday is wholly without factual basis. The two positions are exactly the same. We feel that the question should be given further study before being rejected out of hand, that we should have the fullest possible information on the project before a final decision is made at the federal level. For this reason, we will be meeting the officials of the province of Quebec for the purpose of discussing a possible additional study so that the questions which the federal government has raised, and which have been on the public record for some time, may be adequately dealt with.
July 11, 1975



PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT AT JAMES BAY-INQUIRY AS TO RECEIPT OF SPECIFIC PROPOSAL FROM FRANCE

Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wonder if the minister would be prepared to answer my question as to whether he will table the feasibility study which has been prepared. Quite apart from the feasibility study which was prepared in Canada, did the minister receive or, to his knowledge, did any member of the government receive a specific proposal from the French officials for the establishment of an enriched uranium plant in the James Bay area, as was requested by the Prime Minister during his visit to France last autumn?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the last point, I would have to confirm it with the Prime Minister. Certainly, I have not received a specific proposal. As has been said many times in the House, this study has been carried out by Canadian Pacific, Seru, and the James Bay Corporation. It is not a French government study and it is not the property of the Canadian government to table. I would be prepared to inquire from the three parties whose property it is as to whether they are prepared to have it tabled, and if we have their consent I would be quite happy to do so.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I preface my question this morning by drawing to the attention of the House the presence in the visitors' gallery of a Polish delegation led by the Hon. Boleslaw Kapitan, the minister of sport and tourism and president of the Polish national Olympic committee.
I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he would increase the opportunity of attendance at the Olympics by ensuring that the soccer games be played in that fantastic place, the great city of Toronto?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: I would be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the great many requests I have received, could the minister advise what steps he will take to inform the eligible spouses of pensioners of their pension entitlement, and when these eligible spouses should submit their applications?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, a special leaflet is to be sent to each and every old age pension recipient together with their pension cheque for September, I think. Application forms will accompany these cheques, so that all guaranteed income supplement recipients who are eligible under the act may apply. Furthermore, all others who may feel they are otherwise eligible for this service should apply through their local old age security pension office. However, all pensioners will receive the necessary information during September, so that they can submit an immediate application which will permit us to send these cheques as planned, for October, when this new program comes into force.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question on a matter over which he has joint jurisdiction with the Solicitor General. We now have the evidence of the Jef-feroy case, the escapee who went to Spain on his honeymoon, as members will recall, the Head case and now the Wayne case in Vancouver. Will the minister immediately review the parole regulations, and change them if necessary, and indeed the day pass regulations so that society will be protected which, I believe, has a higher priority and is more important than all this tenderness toward the violent offender?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the government is indeed concerned about this area of the law and is reviewing it carefully. It is, of course, somewhat unfair to ignore the fact that the ordinary techniques of rehabilitation, including parole, are designed in fact to protect society by giving us a better chance of having people who return to society rehabilitated to be better members of it. That has to be balanced and should not be forgotten by highlighting particular incidents in one or two situations where failure has occurred. I say that, however, without withdrawing from my opening statement that obviously this very important area of the law is under review now.



CRIMINAL CODE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Because members of this House on the government side as well as on our side are concerned about this matter, will the Minister of Justice assure the House, and indeed the public, that when he brings in amendments to the Criminal Code which will prevent an appeal court from reversing a verdict of acquittal on a charge under the Criminal Code by a jury, he will not bring in changes in the

July 11, 1975
Oral Questions
omnibus bill with reference to capital punishment and other serious matters to confuse this legislation which was brought about not by the minister but as a result of the position taken by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the proposal that I have is to include the section amending section 613 of the Criminal Code with the sections in the omnibus bill which have previously largely been referred to and are apart from any other major issues.



AIR CANADA


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the rather extraordinary statement made by the auditor of Air Canada that he deemed an obviously doubtful payment of $100,000 to be too small to warrant his concern for the purpose of an audit-an amount which even in these days of inflation is still not chicken feed-will the hon. gentleman give serious consideration to advising or proposing to his colleagues that the Auditor General of Canada be appointed joint auditor of the accounts of Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is a very serious inquiry going on in Montreal, and I think that everyone has full confidence in Mr. Justice Estey. I will not say anything before I receive his recommendations and opinion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not asking about the inquiry; I am asking the minister a simple question. Is he prepared to consider appointing the Auditor General of Canada as joint auditor of Air Canada? This question has nothing to do with the inquiry that is going on.


Jean Marchand: If this is a recommendation by Mr. Justice Estey, we will surely consider it very seriously.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister tell me whether it is the government's intention to discontinue its Box 99 service, which to many people is the only really visible effort on the part of the government with respect to consumer problems?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, a recent Canadian Press release gave completely erroneous information regarding

P.O. Box 99 service. Not only is there no question of ending this service but, on the contrary, we intend to diversify and decentralize that consumer assistance and information service.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear that answer. May I ask the minister whether he would consider augmenting that service by supporting in a financial way municipally operated consumer offices, as he and I have discussed with respect to the township of Nepean as the leading example in Canada?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, to the extent where the financial resources of my department will allow, we clearly intend not only to increase the staff in charge of P.O. Box 99 service but also to assist, through subsidies, Canadian local organizations to better inform and help the consumers.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, perhaps I could address my question to the Postmaster General who has a pure gold reputation in these matters.


An hon. Member:: A quarter ounce.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My question is related to the recent letter released by Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate in the United States. Now that the Solicitor General has indicated that there has been co-operation between the RCMP and U.S. agencies, especially in seeking information against crime, I should like to ask the Postmaster General if this co-operation involves tampering with the mail as indicated in Mr. Nader's letter?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer but I would suggest that organized crime knows no particular boundary, so if there is a maximum co-operation between the RCMP and the FBI it is highly desirable rather than the contrary. On the other hand, it is not the policy of the Post Office to permit any tampering with first class mail by the RCMP or any other agency, nor to the best of my knowledge has any such request been made by U.S. authorities to the RCMP. Second, third and fourth class mail does provide, through regulations, some limited access in this area. For instance, if we have reason to suspect that explosives are in the mail in the form of parcels, certainly we have a right to search certain parcels. In other words, the right is there under the regulations for second, third and fourth class mail but under very, very limited circumstances. There are no such regulations pertaining to first class mail. We have also an obligation to protect the privacy of private citizens.
July 11, 1975


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: While agreeing with the Postmaster General on the necessity of investigating criminal activities, I should like to ask whether he can confirm or deny the statement of the chief inspector in the U.S. postal service, Mr. William J. Cotter, that authorization has been given by Canadian officials to interfere with mail covers or the interception of mail to record postmarks, destination, sender's address and any other information on the outside of envelopes which is conveyed to individuals in the United States?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment since I have not seen the article. I presume it would have come second hand through some newspaper or some printed version of what the gentleman may or may not have said. Not having seen the article, I cannot comment on its contents.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you . . .


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Silence, for goodness' sake! That question was a supplementary to the President of the Privy Council.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the increase in the actual cost of food, as announced today, bears very heavily on old age pensioners, and in view of the fact that the quarterly escalation of old age pensions does not cover the actual cost of living of senior citizens and is always behind by several months, will the minister take whatever steps are necessary to provide a substantial increase in the old age pension?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, pensions are now being indexed quarterly according to the cost of living. There was a pension increase last July 1, and two additional upward adjustments are forecast for October 1, 1975 and January 1, 1976. These will also take into account the increase in the cost of living. For the time being, no other legislation is under consideration.
Oral Questions


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I ask the floor for a supplementary. I hope you will not rebuke me for repeating the question but the minister pays no attention to the fact that the quarterly escalation does not cover the actual cost of living for senior citizens and is always three, six, or eight months behind. What is he going to do about it?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, once again, this is exactly the same question. The increase being provided is not six or eight months but only three months behind the cost of living increase. As I have said, no other legislation is being considered.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Acting Prime Minister.
Since the Ontario government refuses to keep their word and extend their help for holding this important United Nations conference, and I repeat a United Nations and not a PLO conference, would the Acting Prime Minister confirm or state whether he will consider proposing that this important conference be held in another city, possibly the quiet, historical French city of Quebec?



ALLEGED DEFECT IN PIPELINE UNDER AGASSIZ BRIDGE-REQUEST FOR REPORT

Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister been advised of the extreme concern being expressed over an allegedly defective pipeline under the Agassiz bridge in British Columbia and if so, has an investigation been conducted to ascertain the truth in the allegations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there was an investigation some time back I believe. On this allegation I would have to inquire from the National Energy Board to confirm whether or not there has been a repetition of the incident.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs I should like to ask the deputy Prime Minister if the government has

July 11, 1975
Oral Questions
given any consideration to shortening the shocking period of delay suffered by veterans under the pension board. These delays are anywhere from 18 months to two years.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give consideration to these representations.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the minister commissioned the Statue Olympic for $50,000 plus and in view of the fact that the minister does not want to unveil but wants to destroy this $50,000 so-called masterpiece so that it will be kept from the public eye which I may say, Mr. Speaker, is contrary to a statement made by the Postmaster General, a real stick man, who stick-handled around the whole issue in reply to my question on June 26 on page 7081 of Hansard, I would ask on behalf of the taxpayers of this country and members of this House if the minister will produce the Statue Olympic so that the public can judge whether their money was well spent?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


An hon. Member:: There is no order in question period.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman has paid me a compliment. He talked about my stick-handling, but I can hardly skate as members of the press gallery well know. As Postmaster General, I assume the decision was made prior to my term in office. The cost of the statue the hon. gentleman referred to was not in the order of $50,000 but of $8,000 or $10,000, and when unveiled will no doubt create the same type of controversy as did the Henry Moore sculptures from time to time which some people said had no place in public while others thought they were distinguished pieces of art. Perhaps the same thing will happen when this sculpture is unveiled, perhaps by the hon. gentleman.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When it is unveiled, will the minister advise the House which minister modelled for it, the Postmaster General or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, to answer the second question, it would depend on its dimensions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['1. (a) and (b)\nNone.\n2. Not applicable.']
Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to refer to another dimension, so to speak. On [Mr. Brisco.)
July 9 the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) asked a question relating to the purchase of land in LeBreton Flats. I should appreciate an opportunity to answer the question as I believe the matter is very much in the public interest.
On April 1, 1975, the National Capital Commission acquired 11.8 acres on a site on Wellington Street West, Ottawa. The land was assembled by Goldfan-Cadillac-Fairview which was-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand the minister's desire to make a statement, and I hope he will. But if he makes a statement during the question period he precludes the normal right of reply and questioning. I submit that other hon. members may also be interested. I would be prepared to consent to his making a statement in the normal manner after the question period has ended. I do not think he should make it during the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) requires the unanimous consent of the House to give the information at this time. We are not now in the question period; the question period is over. The information is not being given by way of a statement made by the minister; accordingly, the unanimous consent of the House is necessary if the information is to be given at this time. I take it that unanimous consent is not forthcoming.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak on the same point of order, I promised the hon. member an answer in the House. I was attempting to keep my promise but he does not wish me to do so. I will make my statement to the press, just as he made his statement to the press.



Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table bilingual copies of the executive summary of the report on the West Coast fishing vessels casualties inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by ministers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Now that Your Honour has called for statements by ministers, since the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) wanted to make a statement why does he not make it now? Under our new rules it is entirely in Your Honour's hands as to how much time is to be permitted for this. It seems to me that this is the time to do it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
July 11, 1975


QUEBEC CIVIL CODE
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That the provisions of Standing Order 103(1) concerning notice of sitting of a committee to consider a private bill, namely, C-1001, an act to provide an exception from the general law relating to marriage in the case of Richard Fritz and Marianne Strass, be suspended.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion may only be proposed with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,679, 2,109, 2,305, 2,365, 2,547, 2,583, 2,808 and 2,831.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 702, 2,118 and 2,483 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, did the January 27 edition of U.S. News and World Report, as distributed for sale in Canada, contain 24 V4 pages of advertising?
2.	Were fourteen of these pages advertising products which are sold in Canada by Canadian companies?
3.	Is such advertising an influence on the Canadian consumer?
4.	Is such advertising detrimental to the Canadian magazine industry and, if so, what measures are contemplated so that it will be curtailed?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: The
series of questions posed relate to matters not officially connected with either the Government or Parliament, (Beauchesne 171(dd)).
Order Paper Questions RADIO AND TV FARM PROGRAMMES


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	For each year 1950, 1960 to 1974, how much time did CBC give, by radio and by television nationally, to farm news?
2.	How much time did regional stations devote to such news?
3.	Has there been a drop in farm relating programmes and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Are farm programmes the same in the Maritimes as in Western Canada and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Does the government believe that farmers in one region should have the opportunity to know farm facts and problems of another region?


James Hugh Faulkner: In
reply to Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4,1 am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. English Television: From 1954 to 1970 a weekly half-hour program called "Country Calendar" was produced and telecast by each of the following regions: Vancouver to the Pacific network; Winnipeg to the three Prairie provinces; Toronto to Ontario and English-speaking Quebec; Halifax to the Maritimes and Newfoundland. Several times a year, regional programmes were shortened to include inserts of national and current agricultural news and reports on government and national agricultural meetings. Four to six times a year, regional programs were pre-empted for a full half-hour production on an agricultural subject of national importance and interest. In January 1971, the regional "Country Calendar" was replaced with a new national program, "Country Canada", telecast weekly. "This Land", which started as "This Land of Ours" in 1965, is a national program dealing with agriculture, forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation. A major three-part documentary called "Elements of Survival" was telecast during 1974. French Television: From 1955 to 1972, a weekly thirty-minute programme "Les Travaux et les Jours" was telecast on the network. Since September 1972, an hour-long programme called "La Semaine verte" has been carried weekly. English Radio: From 1939 to 1968 a daily half-hour farm broadcast was produced in Toronto, Halifax, Winnipeg, Regina and Edmonton. Windsor and Calgary began the same pattern in 1961, and Newfoundland broadcasts for fishermen began in the early 1950s. In 1968 this was extended to one hour. In 1971 it was extended to two hours to permit further use of syndicated farm material and provincial issues. "National Farm Radio Forum" was discontinued in the mid-1950s. Half-hour farm broadcast on Saturdays was discontinued in 1968, when the daily hour-long programme was scheduled. French Radio: 1950 to 1971 a 25-minute daily programme called "Le Reveil rural" was broadcast. From 1971 to the present, "D'un soleil a l'autre" has been carried on the network for 20 minutes each day. For the past several months, there has been an agricultural insert in the daily programme "Michel Desrochers".
2. English Television: Regional news reports of three to five minutes or, if more newsworthy, a national insert of 15 minutes, were included in local "Country Calendar" programmes. In "Country Canada", reports on meetings in the agriculture industry, plus agricultural news, are frequently included. In addition, the following regional programmes have been presented: from Winnipeg since 1974, "Points West", half-hour on agricultural concerns, shown weekly through fall and winter; from Halifax since 1955,
July 11, 1975

Order Paper Questions
"Fisherman's Log" (now "Land and Sea"); from St. John's since 1951, "Land and Sea", a series of documentaries on agriculture and fisheries. French Television: All agricultural programmes are shown on the full network. English Radio: See answer to part 1. French Radio: All agricultural programmes are shown on the full network.
3.	No.
4.	English Television: The same national "Country Canada" programmes telecast in the Maritime provinces is seen in western Canada, as well as the same "This Land". Subject matter for inclusion in the series is planned to include topics reflecting the concerns and interests of the various regions. French Television: Yes. English Radio: Format and time provided for each regional agricultural broadcast is the same throughout the country, although content varies depending on the specific interests of each region. French Radio: Yes.
5.	The Government supports the CBC interpretation of its responsibilities for providing time on radio and television for programmes relating to farm facts and problems.


Mr. Cossitt: What are all the reasons that most of the antique items purchased at public expense for the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive came originally from foreign countries and what are all the reasons that items of Canadians which would be part of Canada's heritage have not been purchased instead?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The Government spares no effort to ensure that items of Canadia-na forming part of Canada's rich cultural patrimony are preserved as shown by collections in National Museums, the setting up of Heritage Canada, the restoration of historical sites, and the introduction during the current session of Bill C-33, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. Many important items of Canadiana are situated in various parts of 24 Sussex.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names and job designations of all employees of the Prime Minister's staff or of any other government departments that will be accompanying him on his trip to the Caribbean including the forthcoming conference in Jamaica or, who will be assisting him in any way in the Caribbean in regard to this journey and, in each case, what is the specific reason for the individual's services being required?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Prime Minister's Office: Mr. Ivan Head, Special Adviser to the Prime Minister. Mr. Pierre O'Neil, Press Secretary. Mr. Robert Murdoch, Executive Assistant. Mr. Ian Macdonald, Press Assistant. Mr. Ralph Coleman, Press Assistant. Miss Cecile Viau, Private Secretary. Mrs. L. Brazeau, Administrative Assistant (Press). Miss S. Connick, Secretary, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Mrs. C. Steers, Secretary. R.C.M.P.: Inspector Barry Moss, Inspector Gaston Guay, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Department of External Affairs: Mr. Arthur Andrew, Assistant Under-Secretary, (Country

Visits only). Mr. Michel Dupuy, Assistant Under-Secretary, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Mr. A. S. McGill, Former Canadian High Commissioner in Tanzania, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Mr. V. C. Moore, Director Commonwealth, Institutes Division, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Mr. L. Weidman, Director Caribbean Division. Mr. E. J. Bergbusch, Deputy Director, Aid and Development Division, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Mr. V. Johnstone, International Visits and Conference Services. Miss E. Garlick, Secretary. Miss C. Metrakos, Secretary, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Mr. J. Courchene, Clerk, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Mr. W. Horner, Security Guard. Mr. P. Dore, Security Guard, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Department of Finance: Mr. R. K. Joyce, Assistant Deputy Minister, Tariffs, Trade and Aid. Mr. R. B. Davis, International Finance Division, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce: Mr. F. Petrie, General Director, Western Hemisphere Bureau. Mr. A. L. Halliday, Acting General Director, Office of General Relations, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Canadian International Development Agency: Mr. Lewis Perinbam, Vice President, Special Programmes Branch (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Mr. V. G. Lotto, Director, Policy Institution, Multilateral Programmes Branch, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). Mr. K. Johansen, Director, Caribbean Division (Country Visits only). Privy Council Office: Mr. H. B. Stewart, Director of Administration, (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting only). The descriptive titles of the individuals indicate the area of assistance to the Prime Minister. In addition to employees listed above, Mr. James Fleming, M.P. accompanied the Prime Minister.


Mr. Beatty: For each year since the Prime Minister took office, what is the yearly percentage increase or decrease in the total amount of money allotted for security matters but hidden in the estimates as referred to by the Minister of State for Science and Technology on March 25, 1975, before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not
considered to be in the public interest to provide detailed information about security arrangements.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs 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) othdr costs?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. $89,000.
2. (a) Salaries of staff receiving instruction are not included in training costs but are met from the normal
July 11, 1975

salary allotment, (b), (c) and (d) The contract for language training is with the Staff Development Branch of the Public Service Commission. The amount allocated to each of these components of the program is not known by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total cost to CBC for the recent appearance of Gerda Munsinger on television including (a) transportation to and from Canada (b) expenses paid while in Canada (c) amount of fee or salary involved?
2.	What are the names and job designations of all persons in CBC or elsewhere in the government involved in the decision (a) to bring Mrs. Munsinger to Canada (b) to feature her on CBC television?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1 and 2. It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration. In connection with part two, no one in the government was involved in the decisions in question.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	As of May 15, 1975, how many persons have been hired (a) by the Public Service Commission (b) under contract by the Department of Justice for duties relating primarily to implementation and administration of Bill C-47, An Act to amend the Judges Act and certain other Acts for related purposes and in respect of the reconstitution of the Supreme Courts of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island?
2.	In each case, what was the date of the original employment or commencement of contract?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) and (b)
None.
2. Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, 1973 and 1974, and for the six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Department of Supply and Services for travel abroad by (a) the Minister of Supply and Services and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
2.	In the case of expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the person(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?
Return tabled.
Order Paper Questions



DREDGING CONTRACTS

Mr. Coates: 1.	For each year 1970 to 1974 (a) in what amount (b) for what specific purpose (c) on what dates were government dredging contracts awarded to Marine Industries, J.P. Porter and McNamara Corporation, or their subsidiaries?
2.	In the awarding of each such contract, were tenders filed by any other company and, if so, in what amount?
3.	In each such case where a contract was awarded (a) has work been completed to the Department's satisfaction (b) was final payment made (c) in what amount?
4.	In each such case, are final payments still to be made and, if so (a) to whom (b) for what reason are accounts still outstanding?
Return tabled.



STUDY OF POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL OR POLLUTION ASPECTS OF SYNCRUDE CANADA LTD. OIL SANDS OPERATION

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Did the government conduct a study of the possible environmental or pollution aspects of the Syncrude Canada Ltd. oil sands operation and, if so (a) on what date (b) by what department?
2.	Has there been concern by the government about any design or engineering inadequacies from the environmental point of view in the Syncrude plant and, if so (a) what are such inadequacies (b) have they been corrected?
3.	What are the (a) names (b) positions (c) qualifications of officials involved in such a study?
4.	Was the study ever passed on or released to (a) Syncrude officials (b) the Province of Alberta (c) the public?
5.	Did the study contain any recommendations to safeguard against environmental damage and, if so (a) what, if any, were such recommendations (b) what was the reaction to them of (i) Syncrude officials (ii) the Province of Alberta?
6.	(a) To date, how much money has the government invested in Syncrude (b) what will be its total commitment?
7.	Will the government insist that a portion of the money be spent on environmental protection or anti-pollution devices and, if not, for what reason?
8.	Is the government or any of its departments or officials working with any Syncrude or provincial officials to ensure that environmental damage at the oil sands plant does not occur or, if it does, is rectified?
9.	Have any checks been made to see that employees and future employees of the Syncrude project are protected from unusual health problems resulting from oil sands operations and, if not (a) for what reason (b) will any be made in the future?
10.	Does the government intend to use its investment in the project to ensure that (a) environmental damage is kept to a minimum (b) all anti-pollution steps necessary will be taken (c) present and future health hazards to employees will be assessed and eradicated (d) such protection will extend to residents in the area surrounding the oil sands plant?
11.	Is the government prepared to work in mutual cooperation and mutual consultation with both the Syncrude officials and the Province of Alberta to see that environmental damage and health hazards are kept to a minimum at the oil sands operation?
12.	As the government is an equity partner in the Syncrude project, and is into a conflict of interest situation (profit vs. environmental control), what assurance is there that the public interest will be protected insofar as environmental factors are concerned?
Return tabled.

July 11, 1975
Olympic Financing



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, July 8, consideration of Bill C-63, to amend the Olympic (1976) Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is the understanding of the Chair that the point of order raised in connection with motion No. 3 is to be deferred until after the conclusion of discussion on motion No. 4. I am in the hands of hon. members as to whether we shall proceed with the discussion on the point of order on motion No. 3 or wait for the conclusion of debate on motion No. 4. Is it agreed that we shall wait until discussion on motion No. 4 is concluded?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I understood we would proceed immediately to votes on the motions in order and that the ruling on motion No. 3 would be deferred until after those votes had been taken. That is my impression, although I may be wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: In the meantime, perhaps the most expeditious course would be to continue discussion on motion No. 4, or is discussion on motion No. 4 concluded?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my leader has put forward a proposition on the understanding or expectation that a ruling in favour of the validity of motion No. 3 might bring that motion within the realm of the motions to be voted on. If the Chair feels that there should be two sets of votes on amendments at the report stage, that is all right by us. But if the Chair is of the view that only one vote should be taken at the one time, it might be desirable to dispose of the point of order on motion No. 3 before the vote is taken. It all depends on the Chair; the Chair probably has some idea what it proposes to do with respect to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say, as a preliminary indication, that the Chair has grave reservations about the regularity of the motion, as at first glance it appears to go beyond the bill and seeks to amend another statute. That is neither the best nor the appropriate way to achieve an object which is worthy of achievement. That is the preliminary position of the Chair, although I am open to receive argument to see if hon. members can persuade the Chair to adopt another view. Obviously, in terms of our procedure motion No. 3 ought to be disposed of before the votes are called.


Walter David Baker: In that case, Mr. Speaker, may I attempt to dissuade Your Honour from the view you expressed initially with respect to motion No. 3. I am referring to section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and to Standing Order 82(2). The effect of these authorities, in my respectful submission, is this: the Canadian Bill of Rights is always in issue and is always relevant to every bill. This is the case unless it is expressly declared in an act of parliament that the Canadian Bill of Rights shall not apply.

I assume that the bill was examined by the Minister of Justice in the usual course of events and that upon receipt of two copies from the Clerk he has certified that it is not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. I say I assume this to be the case since the bill does not contain a provision to the effect that the Bill of Rights shall not apply, nor has the Minister of Justice reported to the House that he finds anything in the bill which is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights must therefore be considered part and parcel of this bill, in my submission.
According to section 2 of the Bill of Rights, it must be so construed and applied as not to abrogate the Bill of Rights. In considering the provisions of the measure before us, hon. members must keep this in mind. They must do so, also, when they vote on the matter. How, then, can a proposed amendment incorporating the Bill of Rights be construed as irrelevant?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may have missed the point, and perhaps I might elucidate. He is addressing himself to the first few lines of the proposed amendment which says, in effect, that the Canadian Bill of Rights applies to this bill. This may be redundant, but that does not make it out of order from a procedural point of view. What troubles me is that the amendment goes on to interpret the language of the Bill of Rights by saying that for the purpose of a particular subsection the words "due process of law" in the Canadian Bill of Rights shall have a specific meaning. In other words, this is an interpretation of the Canadian Bill of Rights by an amendment to the statute before us. That is the problem.


Walter David Baker: I was about to address myself to that point, Mr. Speaker. The words "due process of law" in paragraph 1(a) can be interpreted as meaning the legislative and the judicial processes of the law. If the legislative process is included in the words "due process of law", then a violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights in the bill is not a violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights when the bill is enacted and thus becomes "due process of law." No one, Mr. Speaker, including yourself, can express a legal opinion in this House as a ruling and, with respect, I cannot therefore know, until a court deals with the matter, whether this is a proper interpretation of the words "due process of law" as used in the Canadian Bill of Rights which, I submit, is an integral part of the bill before the House. This is the submission I make on the point Your Honour has raised.
While I am on my feet there is one other matter I should like to deal with. It relates to clause 4 of the bill with respect to the trade mark application. I think we should dispose of that matter as well. My submission to Your Honour is that this part of the bill is out of order and contravenes section 54 of the British North America Act as well as contravenes Standing Order 62. Both prohibit the introduction of any bill which appropriates any part of the public revenue or any tax or impost when such bill has not been recommended to the House by message from His Excellency. I shall not repeat the message with respect to this bill, but I ask Your Honour to note that it relates to the issuance of Olympic gold coins and the determination of the selling price on the basis of the price of gold.
July 11, 1975

Clause 4, in my submission, goes beyond that recommendation; it deals with something beyond the subject matter of the recommendation, namely, the fees and amounts of money accruing to the Crown. It purports to amend the Trade Mark Act and the Copyright Act under which fees are payable to the Crown. It involves the Crown being deprived of certain fees which would otherwise be payable if the ordinary laws governing trade mark and copyright were allowed to apply.
I think I am bound to put these arguments before Your Honour, and I am glad you have allowed me to do so in the course of dealing with the proposed amendment.


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall not deal with the second point raised with respect to clause 4 of the bill. This is the first time I have heard those views expressed. I would, however, support the position Your Honour has taken with respect to motion No. 3. This seeks to clarify the point that the Canadian Bill of Rights applies to the copyright provisions of the bill. It also seeks to expand the meaning of the phrase "due process of law" for the purpose of this bill and, specifically, to exclude what is called the legislative process.
I share Your Honour's doubts as to the admissibility of this amendment. First, it is not at all relevant to the clause to which it is offered, or to the bill as a whole. There is no mention of the Bill of Rights in this bill, nor is such a reference necessary since the Bill of Rights is supposed to have primacy over other federal statutes. Second, the amendment may be considered meaningless since it attempts to abridge the power of parliament by restricting the nature of future legislation. This is simply not possible under our system. No act of parliament can, by its own provision, prevent its future amendment by some other act.
Olympic Financing
The second part of the amendment, and I cannot be persuaded otherwise, goes on to put forward a specific interpretation of the words of another statute as they relate to this particular bill. Whatever that interpretation may mean from a legal point of view I make no attempt to say in the course of this ruling. I simply look at the face of it and say it is an attempt to redefine what is meant by "due process of law" in the Bill of Rights vis-a-vis the provisions of the bill before us. If this were to be done, it would have to be done in some other way, not by a casual amendment to one clause of this particular bill. An amendment of that kind certainly goes beyond the scope of a report stage amendment and I therefore have to rule motion No. 3 out of order on procedural grounds.
I understand the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) had the floor at the conclusion of the discussion on motion No. 4.


Mr. Jelinek:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we have finished debating motion No. 4.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall deal, first, with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) concerning clause 4 of the bill. I have to decline consideration of that question more from the point of view of timing than anything else. Clause 4 has been under his watchful eye since the introduction of the legislation. We are now nearing the end of the eleventh hour under a time allocation order; the clause and the rest of the bill are to voted upon in about 25 minutes. A point so serious is simply not capable of consideration now, in these circumstances. I invite the hon. member, should he become aware of such a difficulty on another occasion, to raise the matter a little earlier so as to allow us an opportunity to give it serious consideration.
To deal with motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), nothing which has been said dissuades me from the initial position I have taken. It seems to me that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is perfectly correct in his opening remarks. The Canadian Bill of Rights, by its own provisions, applies to all Canadian legislation. If any further certification of this were needed, the stamp of the Minister of Justice to this effect appears on the front page of the bill. This certifies the application, and for this reason the first part of the amendment would seem to me to be redundant.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question is on motion No. 2.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question is on motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the members to serve on the part of this House on the Special Joint Committee on the National Capital be the following: Messrs. Baker (Grenville-Carleton), Bawden, Clermont, Corbin, Ellis, Francis, Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier), Goodale, Isabelle, Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), La Salle, Macquarrie, Poulin, Rondeau and Watson; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill as reported be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Pursuant to special order, it will be read the third time later this day.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) on a point of order.


Thomas Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, may I ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions, to put forward a motion so that the Special Joint Committee of this House and of the Senate may consider the report on the National Capital Region.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-63, an act to amend the Olympic (1976) Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, understandably, as host of the 1976 Olympic Games to be held in the Maisonneuve-Rosemount riding, in Montreal, I would have liked to speak several times during the debate on Bill C-63 this week.
During the course of the debate, reference was made on several occasions to the administration of the Olympic Games, as also to the way in which the city of Montreal was discharging its mandate. Reference was also made to the personality of the mayor and the responsibilities of the federal government towards the 1976 Olympic Games. I should like to take this opportunity to straighten out the facts to which the interventions of the hon. members pertained.
Madam Speaker, the first allusion was made to the administration entrusted to the organizing committee of the 1976 Olympic Games by the Quebec National Assembly. Doubt was expressed that COJO could meet the standards, that it could grant contracts while respecting

July 11, 1975
Olympic 1976 Act
the natural justice that exists in this country, whereby when a choice is to be made between different proposals, the public should be given the opportunity of being heard on each one of them. Now, Madam Speaker, I was quite astonished to hear such statements since newspapers, in August of 1974, stated that COJO had to follow a very specific procedure in granting both contracts and commercial licences.
That procedure, Madam Speaker, is the following:
For a bill of $500 or less, an assistant to a director general may sign the invoice himself. If the bill is between $500 and $5,000, the director general must also sign the invoice. If the bill is over $5,000, at least two prices must be asked for, preferably by tenders. Well, up to date, COJO always abided very strictly by that rule of its constitution.
Reference was also made, Madam Speaker, to the COJO administration as such, COJO administrators. Members made reference to the personality of its president as well as that of various people who have very strict responsibilities in administering the amounts transferred to COJO by the federal government.
Well, Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that several ridings will be hosting the Olympic Games, for example the riding of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), and the riding of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). For example, COJO will invest over $1 million in the riding of Joliette. For example, the hon. member for Joliette knows quite well the assistant to the vice-president of the COJO administration. He is a mayor who occupies the chair that he himself occupied previously in the municipality of Crabtree. Consequently, if there were such persistent doubts about the honesty of the COJO administration it would have been the duty of every member of the ridings where COJO is spending to question the integrity of the administration. Never did we hear about such doubts, never did members in this House rise on questions of privilege to inquire into the amounts COJO is spending in their ridings or to question people on the COJO board of directors, people whose political and administrative records they know quite well.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, I regret that these debates provided an opportunity to direct such attacks on the integrity of COJO members. The same goes for the city of Montreal, Madam Speaker. Reference was made during this debate to the personality of the mayor of Montreal and the fact that the city of Montreal could award contracts to itself without calling for tenders. It is true, Madam Speaker, but the city of Montreal does not do so without the knowledge of the people. You just have to read the Montreal city charter. Section 107 of the charter allows the executive committee of that city to award a contract of over $10,000 without tenders when a report to that effect has been tabled at the city council, a report which has to be drawn up by the board concerned, approved by the majority of the executive and ratified by the city council as a whole.
Those particular statutory powers were granted by the Quebec National Assembly and can be found in the incorporating charter of Montreal. Of course it may seem

extravagant in 1975 to leave a city of the size of Montreal with such powers. As my hon. colleagues should know, on July 8, 1975, during the sessions of the parliamentary commission on municipal affairs in Quebec City, Quebec's municipal affairs minister made the following statement:
Quebec's parliamentary commission on municipal affairs will investigate the extravagant powers enjoyed by Montreal for awarding contracts without tender.
We in this country have legal authorities with a responsibility to monitor the management of cities, and those authorities are the provinces. The federal government has always prided itself on respecting municipalities, on respecting municipal autonomy. Although we may not agree on the way Montreal and other Canadian cities assume their constitutional responsibilities, the Canadian constitution has provided for organizations to check into that. Such organizations are the provinces, Quebec's municipal affairs commission and Quebec's municipal affairs minister.
Montreal will probably have to explain why in 1975 it should be granted such powers under its charter, but as long as those powers are provided for in the charter, Madam Speaker, on what basis could we challenge the honesty of Montreal in awarding contracts when it is just doing so in accordance with its charter? We have no justification, Madam Speaker. I find it all the more regrettable since the reputation of the city of Montreal has always done credit to Canada. Did any member of the House after the 1967 international exhibition question the way the city of Montreal carried out its responsibilities? Never, Madam Speaker! And yet on the matter of the Olympic Games, the city of Montreal has always shown the same enthusiasm, the same sense of duty towards Canada.
We must not forget that the first time the city of Montreal went before the International Olympic Committee to host the games, the committee rejected Montreal's application. What was the reaction of the press then? We must go back to 1969. Canadian newspapers were unanimous in supporting a new application by the city of Montreal following the rejection.
The mayor of Montreal refused to be mollified by his failure. He went back to his office and built a new file. He visited mayors of other Canadian cities who might have been interested and together they agreed that Canada should at that stage make only one application to host the games.
It will be recalled that after Montreal was granted the games, the countries which sponsored or wanted to have the games-the cities of Moscow and Los Angeles at the time-gave in and recognized that Montreal's case was one of the better prepared. Now, Madam Speaker, we had to endure over those last few months a general crisis of skepticism in the press. Not one month passed without someone questioning any other aspect of the Olympic Games.
When the open roof stadium project was unveiled there were people to question the technique. Once the technical problems were resolved, some questioned the ability and the power of the City of Montreal to carry out the construction alone. In every paper, and I am referring particularly to 1974 papers, one could read as alarming headlines
July 11, 1975

as these: The world press is still wondering about the 1976 Games. Yet, Madam Speaker, it seems that CO JO and the City of Montreal authorities have succeeded over the last few months, in convincing the public that the Games will be ready on time. So there is a requirement now fulfilled. The magazine L'Express of February 23, 1975 had this headline: "Yes, the Games will indeed be held in Montreal and they will be presented on time". When Lord Killanin came to Montreal in May, he too visited the Olympic facilities and reached the same conclusion.
The Herald Tribune international edition of June 18, 1975 also reported the city of Montreal would be ready in time. After such concern was satisfied, we are now turning to the question of the deficit, which led the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), responsible for the Olympic (1976) Act, to introduce the bill now before us.
All through this debate, reference was made for instance to other responsibilities of the city of Montreal, and other responsibilities of the Canadian government. Certain hon. members wondered whether a city the size of Montreal could spend so much money on Olympic facilities, when it is still dumping sewerage into the St. Lawrence River.
It is false to suggest that the city of Montreal makes no effort to solve that problem. In March of this year, the Minister of Environment (Mrs. Sauve) announced jointly with the provincial minister of municipal affairs and the chairman of the Montreal Urban Community that $40 million were being allotted, through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for the construction of a section of sewer mains that will cover the whole territory of Montreal, and also announced plans for the construction of a $500 million sewage treatment plan. At the time of speaking, an application was filed with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation covering the first phase of the project. It is still being implied however that the city of Montreal is not politically mature enough to discharge its environmental responsibilities in 1975. Well, every member in this House received that press release. How can it still be suggested the city of Montreal is not aware of its responsibilities? I am shocked that such remarks can still be made in this Olympic revenue debate.
I would also deal with the federal contribution and the Olympic contribution to amateur sport in this country. Surely my colleagues magnified capital expenditures versus expenditures for amateur sport. Now, Madam Speaker, up to this day, over $10 millions have been handed over to the Canadian provinces in order to support amateur sports. And those $10 millions would never have found their way to the Canadian provinces had it not been for the Olympic lottery.
I would like to quote some statistics, Madam Speaker in order to illustrate the extent to which the Olympic lottery program is meant to help amateur sports. It is not a program which was originally submitted to the House by a member of either party, it is a project which was set up by the Mayor of Montreal in order to support amateur sports in Canada. The province of Ontario has received over $3,500,000 through the Olympic lottery, Newfoundland, $80,000 and Alberta, over $500,000.
Olympic 1976 Act
The provinces are now able to support amateur sports even more significantly through this program, thanks to the Olympic Lottery.
Of course, it might be argued in an absolute way that the funds allocated to the Olympic facilities for home building or park development. However, Madam Speaker, a choice must be made: Either we host the Olympics or we do not. Once it has been decided to host them, we must make sure that minimum facilities are provided for the Games.


An hon. Member:: Make sure you don't go beyond that minimum.


Serge Joyal: Yet, who knows the criteria for these minimum facilities? Who lists these minimum facilities? It is not the mayor of Montreal, not even the Canadian parliament. The minimum number of places, of seats and of facilities that a city preparing to host the Olympic Games must be able to provide for the international athletes is provided for in the regulations of the International Olympics committee.


An hon. Member:: Why do you not follow these minimum criteria?


Serge Joyal: I wish that hon. members opposite would let me speak, Madam Speaker. I sat here for a whole day and I listened to all of them very attentively. And I am not making any partisan comments today; since the beginning of my speech, I have avoided all partisan references; I have not named a single member of this House. I have simple corrected the inaccuracies which have been said during this debate. I believe that in such cases, we must all make an effort as Canadians.
Whatever we may say about the Olympic Games, they will still be held; they will probably be more or less successful according to the position taken by Parliament. It is easy to say that we are all in favor of the Olympic Games. On March 5, 1975, the mayor of Montreal sent a letter to the members of the House inviting them to visit the Olympic facilities. When we got there, I was sad to note that only one party of the House was represented or had shown any interest.
I deplore this fact. As I said earlier, the Olympic Games will be held in my constituency. However, I want to give the hon. members the assurance that those responsible for organizing the Olympic Games have always been quite willing to answer any question. Moreover, the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) was right to say that he is not responsible for auditing the COJO budget, anymore than he is responsible for auditing the budget of the city of Montreal. There has been an election last fall in Montreal and an opposition party, which has been elected, takes it as its duty to question the way the City of Montreal fulfills its obligations. As federal members of parliament, we have no right to meddle in the business of Montreal town councillors. If we want to question their action, let us get elected as town councillors in Montreal and let us question the municipal administration. So far, we have no reason whatsoever to question again the way the City of Montreal behaved on the international level.

July 11, 1975
Olympic 1976 Act
Has there been any example of the Mayor of Montreal reporting to the International Olympic Committee and being criticized by the Canadian public on the way he discharged his mandate? No, Madam Speaker. However, other contingent aspects of the Olympic Games have been continuously questioned month after month, week after week. As recently as Wednesday of last week, the Mayor of Montreal and the President of COJO appeared before the Quebec Municipal Affairs Commission. There was much talk about the delay. It was demonstrated that, since last January, the delay has reached 11 weeks. The contractors in charge of the project clearly showed that they had made up for a five weeks' delay, that, therefore they were only six weeks behind and that, in the short period of time which was left, it was certainly possible for them to make up for five weeks.
The evidence of it has been shown, hon. members opposite were present at the sitting of the Quebec Parliamentary Commission, every member of the commission had the opportunity to ask bluntly what were the causes of the delay, which factors had come into play to alter the original estimates. In spite of all this skepticism and of this negative attitude, the Olympic Games are on their way to success. I am sorry, I am not the one who says so, but the general public is. Let us consider the success of the Olympic Lottery, let us consider the way private business reacted at the grant of licences and contracts by COJO.
On September 24, 1974, the preliminary report on franchise or license sales and contracts showed returns of $11 million to COJO. Original estimates amounted to $3.5 million. Today, Madam Speaker, the sale of franchises and licenses will bring more than $30 million to COJO. Is it to be believed that the Canadian public and private markets are dead set against the Games when the Olympic Lottery, the licenses and business contracts of COJO are selling so well? Indeed, the revenue anticipated is ten times higher than that expected initially.
Of course, it is precisely the silver coins that have prompted us today to reconsider Bill C-63. However, Madam Speaker, members of the House, the city of Montreal and COJO are not responsible for the difficulties experienced by the silver coin program. The sales of Canadian coins on the Canadian market are up to expectations. It is in countries faced with special economic conditions, such as Japan and the United States, that the sales have not been as high as expected. We have before us today a bill which will allow COJO and the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) to mint gold coins. Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is precisely in response to the enthusiasm of the Canadian public towards the Olympic Games. This is not a bill we are imposing on COJO. It is a bill which the international community is calling for, if COJO is to achieve its objectives.
Madam Speaker, the hearings of the parliamentary committee which met this week in Quebec City ended with a remark which I feel bears repeating here, and I shall conclude with this. It was suggested in this parliamentary committee, especially by the opposition, that the federal government should share in the Games deficit. Madam Speaker, I suggest to my hon. colleagues on both sides that the contribution of the federal government and the Canadian public to the success of the Games has been

tremendous. Over $130 million will be spent by some 30 federal departments and agencies. I feel that the people in the province of Quebec and the City of Montreal should make an additional effort. The federal government is not the only one that has to make an extra effort.
From the very beginning, the federal government has shown its enthusiasm for the Olympics. If it had not adopted these self-financing programs, the games would never have taken place in Canada. The self-financing formula will also make it possible for competitions to take place in Canada in 1978. The government has always shown it was very anxious to meet objectives in which Canada's reputation was at stake. Hon. members who have had occasion to travel outside the country are always asked the following question: Will the Olympic Games lie ready on time? Will they be as well prepared as most of the publicity has made us believe?
In my opinion, Madam Speaker, at the present stage of this legislation we have a heavy individual burden to bear, that of re-establishing the credibility of Parliament towards the games and the responsibility of the same Parliament not to level any kind of criticism in this regard without having read newspapers or the debates of other provincial assemblies in this country.
Had the amendments proposed by the official opposition proven truly essential, the Postmaster General would have been very open to receiving any such amendment. In my opinion, Madam Speaker, the way the Postmaster General behaved throughout the study of this bill deserves our total support. I am grateful to him for having shown so much understanding and tactfulness so as to enable Canada to be proud of its performance in 1976.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this bill.

This bill constitutes just a small part of the epic relating to the Olympics. COJO, the committee responsible for administering and financing the games, is faced with a very massive deficit calculated to be in the area of $250 million to $300 million or possibly more. This bill will enable COJO to reduce that deficit a little. However, COJO and those who have to pick up the tab will be faced with a very massive deficit even with the additional revenue provided by this bill.

My colleagues have tried to improve this bill. They have made valuable suggestions to eliminate some serious shortcomings in this bill, but the government did not agree with their suggestions.

I think the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) has had a very sincere desire to see the bill complete all stages and become law despite differences of opinion about the merits of certain of its provisions. I must say, however, I have the impression that a number of members of the government would have been quite happy to have found some excuse to leave the bill hanging in the air. That would give them an opportunity to create the impression in some parts of the country that the official opposition is in some way responsible for the massive deficit that the Olympic
July 11, 1975

Games will face. In saying that, I am not attempting in any way to reduce what I think is the obvious intensity of the desire of the Postmaster General to have the bill passed.
I want to range a little beyond the subject of the bill, but closely connected to it, following the hon. member opposite who just finished his speech. I want to say this before the bill completes third reading because this may be the last opportunity we will have for a while to express any views on the subject. From the outset, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government have been irresponsible with regard to the Olympic Games.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister issued an invitation to the International Olympic Committee on behalf of Canada without, apparently, examining the financial implications of such an invitation. Reference was made a few minutes ago to criticism of the city of Montreal. I have great admiration for the mayor of Montreal; he is a man of great energy and capacity. But I must say it is difficult for many people, journalists, even ordinary members of parliament, to regard all the forecasts made by the mayor as being very credible; for instance, when he said it would be just as likely for a man to bear a child as for the Olympics to experience a deficit. It was a comment difficult to take seriously at the time and it has become rather ludicrous since then. So if the administration of the city of Montreal lacks credibility in the country in general, it is because of statements of that sort.
But I am not here to criticize the administration of the city of Montreal or, indeed, the administration of the games. I say that it was irresponsible for the Prime Minister to extend the invitation without examining the financial implications and taking into account the probability of a deficit. I say that once the Prime Minister signed that invitation and once the mayor of Montreal was able to persuade the Olympics committee to grant the games to Montreal, the rest has unfolded as inevitably as a Greek drama.
I want to say to my friends in the government that as far as the Olympic Games are concerned, they wanted the glory associated with them, but whenever trouble developed somebody else was at fault. The Prime Minister and members of the government have persisted in saying that the federal treasury would make no contribution toward reducing any deficit. There might be some room for discussion as to how large the federal contribution should be and whether it remains strictly within the terms of reference laid down by the Prime Minister, but this is not a matter upon which I want to comment this afternoon. What disturbs me is that the Prime Minister, having issued the invitation, having set all this in motion, apparently believes he is discharging his responsibility by saying repeatedly that the government is not committed to any financial responsibility.
The Olympics are now faced with a massive deficit, a deficit which cannot be explained by the ravages of inflation alone, although no doubt inflation has added greatly to it. The people of Montreal and the people of Quebec
Olympic 1976 Act
generally realize they will have to meet the cost of any deficit. When they are in the course of paying the bill, they should understand that in addition to any responsibility Montreal and the province of Quebec may have to bear, the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada are also involved. They should understand that it was not just the mayor of Montreal or the Government of Quebec-it was the Prime Minister of the country who helped to get the taxpayers of Montreal and Quebec into this position.
The bill now before us reflects only one small aspect of the total story. When the first Olympics bill was brought forward relating to coins and stamps, the minister responsible, now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) but at that time president of the treasury board, told us the legislation brought forward on that occasion would fully discharge all the responsibilities of the federal government, that it would meet all federal commitments to COJO. We have since seen this bill brought forward to meet further responsibilities which apparently were not anticipated at that time.
I simply say that if this bill is passed, I hope it will be the end of special projects coming before parliament in connection with the financing of the Olympics. I am considering it as the final measure. Though it will do something to reduce the deficit, a massive deficit still faces the games; the overriding problem is still there. I simply wish to say, as I sit down, that the Government of Canada does not discharge its responsibility to the people of Montreal, to the people of Quebec or to the people of Canada simply by saying it has no financial responsibility. The people of Montreal and the people of Quebec will have to pick up the tab, and this whole problem flows inevitably from the Prime Minister being prepared to issue a letter of invitation in the first place without any real examination of what was involved.


William Heward Grafftey: Madam Speaker, I will refer to the statement of the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Since it was obvious that Canada would host the 1976 Olympics, every opposition member has fully supported the Olympics in Canada. Of course, Madam Speaker-


Marcel Prud'homme: With slight differences, believe me.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member keep quiet? It is very annoying for opposition members. He speaks steadily without being asked to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. If the honourable member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) wishes to participate in the debate, he will have the opportunity to do so in a few minutes.


William Heward Grafftey: I will most certainly discuss his comments shortly.
Of course, Madam Speaker, as a Quebecer, like government members and the other opposition members, I am very proud of the fact that we will host the Olympics in Montreal, in the province of Quebec. That is obvious, but it
7502

July 11, 1975
Olympic 1976 Act
must be kept in mind that I prefer to say that Canada will host the Olympics because it happens that I feel that most opposition and government members think that it is with the money contributed by all Canadian taxpayers that we will finance the Olympics.
Madam Speaker, I repeat for the second time that every member in this House must be satisfied that from the beginning, we in the opposition have supported the holding of the Olympics Games in Canada. But what I regret deeply it is that every time we-


Some hon. Members:: The hon. member makes children cry in the galleries!


William Heward Grafftey: What I regret deeply, Madam Speaker, and I will speak frankly and clearly this afternoon, is that every time the opposition bring forward serious amendments to the Olympics Act for the well being of all Canadians, the government members ... I listen to the radio, I watch TV in the province of Quebec. Whenever we propose amendments to a legislation, government members will say: "Once again, opposition members are against Canada, against Quebec". I hope that such a policy is outmoded. I hope the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) agrees with me that the Olympics Games should unite the Canadian population. And it is not right that whenever we are suggesting amendments in good faith the Liberals in Montreal say: "Once more the Progressive Conservative members are against Canadians, against Quebec". Oh yes, you will claim that this is not true but I listen to radio. Yes, some opposition members do listen to radio in the province of Quebec. You are all smiles in the House of Commons but it is not the same story in Montreal, over the radio and on television.
I must say that, in my opinion, it is with the money of Canadian taxpayers that we will finance the Olympics in Montreal, in the province of Quebec. But the Olympic Games are supposed to bring together all Canadians, from British Columbia to Newfoundland.
I do not think it is a good thing. I repeat for the third or fourth time that it is not a good thing. The Minister knows it. It is not good when we move such amendments, when members like the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Pru-d'homme) .. . Yes, you are typical.. . You are the one who made such a statement: Once again, the anti-Quebecers ...


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I want to remind him that he must address the Chair and not the members opposite.


Marcel Prud'homme: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Saint-Denis rises on a question of privilege.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I do not want to-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster, filibuster.


Marcel Prud'homme: I do not want to cut short the eloquence of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), but I think he has certainly gone too far when he said that the hon. member for Saint-Denis ... I may

have interrupted him, but I have never said the words he has just mentioned. I will not ask him to withdraw because it would only lengthen the debate but I want to say that the hon. member is quite wrong. My colleague says: "As usual", but I do not want to be so unkind this afternoon. Madam Speaker, I maintain that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is quite wrong when he puts such words in my mouth. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is a gentleman as everyone knows.


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member does not realize that this is not a question of privilege, but a matter for debate. The hon. member . ..


Marcel Prud'homme: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order and perhaps-


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, if you allow me to explain, you will realize that this is indeed a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


Marcel Prud'homme: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has been putting words in my mouth. If this is not a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, I should like you to tell me what is. I consider the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi to be a gentleman. I am sure he would not leave the House with the impression that, either on radio or on television, I accused again Conservative members of being anti-Canadian or anti-Olympics, since I have not made any statement in the House. I therefore urge the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, whom I consider a perfect gentleman, not to put in my mouth words I have never said.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The meaning of "question of privilege" has been defined many times in the House, and if the hon. member will refer to past issues of Hansard, he will find that a member may rise on a question of privilege only when his or her ability to perform has been hindered. In this case, we are not dealing with a question of privilege but with a point of order. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


William Heward Grafftey: Madam Speaker, I want to clarify one matter that I think is extremely important. I hope the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) is going to enlighten me and many other members of the opposition about the tactics used over the last four days. According to the press, this legislation was withdrawn this week. Then late in the week, under the usual end of week circumstances, it was reintroduced. In term of my vote on the amendments and what happens during the rest of this afternoon, I am taking the attitude that the minister never intended to withdraw this legislation and that it was not withdrawn in fact. The government, with the exception of a little trouble it was having with some of its backbenchers, fully intended to have happen today what in fact has happened.
July 11, 1975

I suggest to the Postmaster General that the business through this House will be more expeditiously handled if the government treats the opposition with a little more openness and frankness from time to time.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has already underlined the fact that each and every member of the official opposition party has supported the principle of holding the Olympics in Canada since it was announced that we would hold them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: But we do not feel it is good for our reputation or in fact good for national unity when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) plays confrontation politics with something as important as the Olympics. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, along with the premier of the province of Quebec and the mayor of Montreal the Prime Minister of Canada also welcomed the Olympics to this country. But since that day we have been wondering where he stands with his "on again, off again" confrontation tactics vis-a-vis Olympic financing.
I am a Quebecker who lives near the city of Montreal and I am proud that the Olympics are going to be held in that great metropolis of Canada. We have a great job to do in terms of letting everybody in Canada and everybody outside Canada know that the games are going to be held in Canada, and it will be largely the Canadian taxpayers' dollars that will pick up much of the deficit.
One thing I deplore, Madam Speaker. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) have both worked tirelessly and sincerely in the interests of all Canadians in order to bring certain good amendments before the House. I say to the Postmaster General that the chickens are soon going to come home to roost.
We believe that if the amendment we proposed had been accepted today, not only would the Canadian people be getting real coinage for the first time in the history of coins of this sort-they have in fact been watered down- but the deficit would have been much smaller. Not only would the Canadian people be getting real, bona fide coinage containing the right amount of gold, but if the minister had done his homework much more money would have been gathered in order to defray the deficit.
I know the minions in the backbenches of the Liberal Party were far more interested in going into the city of Montreal trying to paint us as anti-Quebec. Because of the very nature and political complexity of this country today, every time members of the opposition get up and suggest, in good faith, an amendment which affects all Canadians-in the province of Quebec and outside Quebec- directly or indirectly, the minions in the backbenches of the Liberal Party go around Montreal shouting "antiCanadian" or "anti-Quebec".

-anti-Canadians, anti-Quebec, it is not a good thing for Canada nor for national unity. The amendment that we, members of the opposition, moved were designed to protect the value of the coins issued by the Canadian govern-
Olympic 1976 Act
ment to help the Olympic Games. And if we moved amendments, it was to protect the value of the coins that will be distributed and also for the benefit of Quebecers. I feel that the members from Quebec have insulted their fellow citizens as well as all Canadian people.
If I speak so feelingly, it is because Canada and my province are, in my opinion, much more important than the Liberal party. I quite agree that due to circumstances in general your little speeches are made rather for political purposes than for the benefit of my province and my country.

I do not think it is funny when seven or eight Liberal backbenchers pretend to be nice guys on the floor of the House of Commons. The Postmaster General looks at me with a hurt feeling, but he knows better than anybody what goes on on the Island of Montreal. I am going to repeat this idea again and again, but every time an economic measure comes up for debate in this House of Commons, the Liberal backbenchers go back to the province of Quebec and repeat the same nonsense; they shout "anti-Quebec" or "anti-Canadian". If that is all you people can do, then you should pack your bags and go home, because that attitude is not good for Canada.
Funny money is funny money in the province of Quebec just as it is in the rest of Canada. I suggest to the Postmaster General that as a result of his hasty acquiescence, his little tricks and his invocation of national unity for shortterm political gains, the chickens will come home to roost; the Olympic deficit will not be taken up as well as it might have been if this morning the House had adopted the amendments. As a result of their not having been accepted, there will be a distribution of this funny money in all the provinces, including Quebec, and in my area of Brome-Missisquoi for which I am speaking.

The constituency of Brome-Missisquoi is 85 per cent French-speaking. Phoney money will be issued in Brome-Missisquoi and throughout Canada as a result of a policy adopted by this government today.
I hope that in the future such measures will be approached with an open mind. We are not here to play politics but for the benefit of the country and to amend the legislation from time to time.

I would bet that if the Postmaster General had not been so hasty, if he had practised the participatory democracy we have heard so much about, and had canvassed his caucus-assuming its members had paid attention to the debate and the amendments-he would have found 70 per cent of his caucus would have called this a very bad bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: The minister can read between the lines; he knows what I am getting at. In view of the political complexion of this country and its regionalism, and because of the political forces brought about mostly because of the politics of confrontation on the part of the Prime Minister, I suggest that when we have matters such as the financing of the Olympic Games they should be
29576 -6IV2

July 11, 1975
Olympic 1976 Act
treated with a little more decency and grace, in the interests of the unity of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: I am sorry our amendments were defeated this morning. I am no great expert on parliamentary rules, but if somehow this debate could have gone on-perhaps I am just speaking out loud and I should not tell the House how the deficit could have been properly handled-I know the deficit could have been properly handled; that is, if our amendments had been adopted. The government's actions will be brought home to bear on the minister. He is going to be a nice guy this afternoon. He will go home and have a nice weekend. He will tell his electors that he got the coinage bill through the House. He will go on television, but he will not tell the people about the wastage of millions and millions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars which are being used in respect of this devalued coinage.
I am not a mathematician, nor am I a computer expert, but I believe that had the minister accepted the amendments, the deficit would have been reduced by $5 million or $6 million and the Canadian people would have been able to obtain proper value for coinage which contained the proper amount of gold. We have lost the day over here. I remember the petulant speech of the Prime Minister after he thought he had lost some of his marbles in the 1972 election.


An hon. Member:: He lost them all.


William Heward Grafftey: We lost the day over here. But I should like to serve notice that from now on the government is not going to get away with this kind of attitude, in terms of what the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi will have to say and what all decent Canadians will have to say whether they are Quebeckers or are living in other parts of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: I am not such an avant-garde member. However, you can be sure that I remain, as you do, in contact with my fellow-citizens in Quebec. I seriously and deeply believe that the policy followed this week by the government is really obsolete and from now on, as far as national unity and the rights of the opposition are concerned, you will have to alter your attitude as well as your views for the welfare of Canada.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Madam Speaker, if I look bewildered it is because I had hope-and someone wiser than me once said that hope springs eternal in the human breast-that the tone set for third reading by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would prevail for the duration of the afternoon, because to a large degree the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) is responsible for the fact that we have the bill before us today. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), for some unknown reason, thinks he is the only English-speaking Quebecker in the House of Commons representing a French Canadian riding. The

hon. member forgets that I have been in my riding longer than he has, because I have been in the province longer than he has representing a riding which is over 85 per cent French speaking. I have done a better job in protecting national unity than the hon. gentleman has ever done.
On second reading and at the committee stage I had hoped we would stick closely to this bill, but now the hon. gentleman talks about chickens coming home to roost. He came home to roost a little late and is trying to defend the fact that instead of being in his place on second reading he was running up and down the country, and is just now making the speech he should have made on second reading, to no avail. He knows I am right. It is too late for the hon. member now to say he didn't mean what he said, but the fact is that he said it.
I have no lessons to take in this House or anywhere else, from the hon. gentleman on the question of national unity, and he should know that. If anybody in this House has stuck his neck out for national unity since 1962 it has been the member for Verdun, and at times I have paid for it much more dearly than that member and the jackass who is now speaking from his seat.
I could approach this bill as it should be approached on third reading and talk about the amendments, or make a political speech like the hon. member just made. The member was not here to make that speech on second reading because he was out chasing the pot at the end of the rainbow, and he will never be able to obtain it. The hon. member knows that his speech was ill-timed, ill-prepared, ill-conceived, and it was not a credit to the party he represents. He brought in the strawman of national unity in respect of the Olympics bill, when everybody who participated in this debate from second reading on until today has meticulously avoided pitting Quebec against the rest of Canada.
The first time the issue was raised was when it was raised by the hon. gentleman. All he need do is read the proceedings at second reading and the committee stage to understand the fact that, as the leader of his party quite properly suggested, this bill is a rather minor amendment to a bill which had been discussed fully and improved by amendment when first brought to this House. In case there is any doubt in the hon. member's mind, I made our position very clear. I might say that the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), who is the official spokesman for the Olympics when the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) permits him, has always stood for the Olympics.


William Heward Grafftey: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) has reflected on my speech and I feel I must reply. I could only speak on third reading once it became evident to me that the government was going to defeat an amendment I thought had received agreement.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point raised by the hon. member was not a point of order.
July 11, 1975	COMMONS DEBATES	7505


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) rises on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I would like to submit to your kind attention that the point of order currently raised by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) is in no way a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Indeed, it was a matter of debate.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Madam, the hon. member knows very well that he has no point of order. His argument is a rather silly argument, I might say, when he only now is finding out the attitude of the government on the amendment. Had he been here during second reading and the committee stage when the amendments were defeated, it would have been very obvious to him what the attitude of the government was on the proposed amendments. They were defeated, but the hon. gentleman did not know that because he was 150 miles from here trying to get Convention delegates when he should been in the House of Commons defending the Olympics. When he spoke about chickens coming home to roost he would have been doing much better if he had come home to roost in the House of Commons.
I rose to pilot this bill because the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) was away on business. He will speak a little later. If anyone in this House has worked harder than the President of the Treasury Board then I do not know who it is. When I notice so much flack from a party which is supposed to be so dedicated to the passage of this bill, it makes me wonder, and I thank goodness that the party is led by a gentleman as honourable and responsible as the leader of that party. I am sure the hon. gentleman is not getting up to dispute he is honourable and responsible. Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman just asked if he could buy the first gold coin.
I shall ignore some of the silly remarks some of the bigots speaking from their seats have just made. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is very sensitive about the fact that he was not here. He should have been here at second reading and committee stage to support the question of the amendments but that he was not. If he will let me finish my speech I will get back to the bill. He has his choice. I simply say that if I strayed from the bill it was only because the hon. gentleman brought in a strawman, and that trick is a little too old for most of us. He has no monopoly in this country on the desire to see this country united. He has no monopoly among English speaking Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You do not like it when you are receiving it but we had to listen to his diatribe for 20 minutes. And now he is getting a little of it back. Remember, if you do not like the bill we can have a recorded vote despite the gentlemen's agreement not to do so. The gentlemen's agreement was that we would have a divided vote. I really think everybody wants to help the Olympics. If you want to help the Olympics we can get back to the bill. If I do not
Olympic 1976 Act
go ahead, Madam Speaker, it will be because of the anvil chorus in the corner of the House whose only claim to fame is the ability to sit in a chair. As a matter of fact if their ears were as long as their tongues they would not only sound like jackasses but they would look like jackasses. I simply want to say-


An hon. Member:: Have you ever been kicked by a jackass?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I stay far away from you, that is why I have not.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) has the floor. Perhaps he could be allowed to speak. If hon. members wish to participate, they will be allowed to do so later.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in his contribution at third reading made the point that the Canadian government somehow solicited the Olympic games. I suppose that to a degree that is true, but it is not the whole truth. I am sure his error was unintentional. The games were first solicited by three different cities;-Montreal, Toronto, and Hamilton. Montreal was chosen by the Canadian Olympic Association, which in those days was the right of the association, if I am not mistaken. Upon that official blessing by the association, Montreal made its case, in competition with Moscow and other cities such as Los Angeles, and won the right to host the Olympic games. Of course we were all very pleased about it.
There is no doubt that many mistakes have been made in the preparation of the Olympics. I think I said at second reading that the costs got out of hand. One of the positive things that has resulted out of the furor about the cost of the present Olympics is that in future invitations or solicitations for the honour of hosting the Olympics must be made by a country rather than a city. When the invitation is put forward by a country there is much more flexibility and latitude in choosing a city where the games will be held, and there is an opportunity to exercise a degree of decentralization and a means of spreading the economic benefits across the country. This is one of the positive criticisms that has come out over the last year or two. But the government made its position very clear, and I can only repeat what its position is. The President of the Treasury Board will reiterate it later on.
What we did through an act of parliament was to place at the disposal of the Olympic committee various methods of raising the necessary sum of money, that was realistically set at $300 million or thereabouts. There were three methods-the lottery, the coins, and the stamps program, and related stamp and coin items. This was a new venture by Canadians, a venture in which few other countries have engaged.
The lottery went well beyond our expectation; the stamp program is just about what was anticipated; and the silver coin program is precisely as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) suggested, at $100 million. I think that with their amendment the opposition, quite wisely and properly, suggested that to protect Canadian currency at no time

July 11, 1975
Olympic 1976 Act
should more than $400 million be in circulation, or, in the event that the silver coin program was an unexpected success, no more than $250 million be turned over to the Olympics. Those parameters are still in place.
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite that one of the main reasons I want the gold coins minted is because I do not want to be accused later on, if we had not had gold coins, of being responsible for a deficit, which is certainly not the fault of the government or the fault of the opposition. This does not mean to say that we will not work extremely hard to sell the coins.


An hon. Member:: Why two coins?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We have talked about that in committee, and I am saying this honestly because that question was raised last Thursday. We met then, and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi was not around, but other hon. members were. We began our committee meeting at nine o'clock on Friday-the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) will attest to that, I think-and we sat continuously until 3.30 p.m. without a lunch break. Furthermore, in order to give ample opportunity to opposition members to ask questions, Liberal members on that committee deliberately refrained from asking questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The evidence is there-read it. If hon. members do not want to read it, members of the press gallery will read it. Perhaps they are more objective.
I can only repeat the reason why two coins are proposed. Hon. members do not have to accept it, and I can appreciate that there are those who have misgivings. I can understand and appreciate that, under our system, not everyone has to accept the concept. If they do not like it, they can vote against it. I am simply saying that we will be producing two coins, both at valid money currency, both with the face value of $100, one that we call an uncirculated coin, and one which we call a proof coin.
If the price of gold remains where it is, and I think it will, the uncirculated coin will sell for $115. The uncirculated coin will contain one quarter of an ounce of gold at what they call 14 carats, and .500 fine, which simply defines the ratio between the gold and the alloy which is necessary in every gold coin because gold by itself is much too soft. As to the dimension of the coin, it will be 1.1 inches in diameter, and for those who are interested its thickness will be .067 inches.
The other coin will contain half an ounce of gold at 22 carats and more than .900 fine. With regard to its dimension, it will be precisely one inch in diameter and its thickness will be .075 inches. It will be naturally heavier because of the weight of the gold in the coin. There will be no problem in telling one coin from the other so far as their design is concerned. In speaking this morning to the people in the industry I was told that in fact it will be easier to identify them than if we had two separate coins.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The coin with more gold will have what they call a clear field which, to an amateur like myself, means that the background will be highly polished. The

Queen's image in relief will be heavily frosted so that it will stand out clearly, as compared with the less expensive gold coin which will have a completely dull finish, as these coins usually do, across the face of the coin.
The best protection that I can suggest to anyone who feels that for some reason he cannot make the distinction between the two coins is to buy the coins from a bank or from some legitimate coin outlet or legitimate distributor or dealer, whose names we are prepared to provide since we are very careful of who sells the coins.


Otto John Jelinek: May I be permitted to ask the Postmaster General a brief question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is there agreement to allow the hon. member to ask the minister a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto John Jelinek: I should like to ask the minister to explain briefly why it is necessary to mint two gold coins and, if it is necessary, as was the case with the silver coins, why are the coins of different weights, and why do they not have different designs because the only thing that distinguishes them at present is a different gloss which will wear off anyway?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The gloss will not wear off anyway. The coin collectors make certain that the gloss does not wear off, and people who save gold coins know that.
The reason we have two weights or two qualities is that we are appealing to two markets. The first of these is the average Canadian who wants to buy a gold coin in commemoration of the Olympics for $110 or $115. He knows that it can never depreciate to less than $100 because that is guaranteed by the government. The other, more expensive coin, is for those people who are coin collectors and know precisely what they want, in the same way as people in the philatelic world know exactly what they want in the way of stamps.
There has been pressure on the Postmaster General to produce a coin with considerably less gold than the one-quarter or one-half ounce, thus increasing the potential profit. I have refused to do that, just as we refused to do it when the price of silver skyrocketed and we were faced with the choice of making those coins smaller, reducing the amount of sterling silver or raising the price. We chose the latter because of our concern for the image and the reputation of the Canadian Mint, which is amongst the highest in the world.
If I were to suggest to the Royal Mint that we should produce a coin with less than one-quarter ounce of gold they would be the first to complain. As it is, I can assure the House that the Canadian coins are considered the finest there are. As proof of that just this morning the editor of Numismatic News phoned-it is one of the two highly rated newspapers dedicated to that hobby-to say that they hope we will go through with the coin program alo.ng the lines outlined in second reading and at committee stage because, in his opinion, it would be one of the finest gold coins in circulation next year.
July 11, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Finally, in order to protect people who buy either of the coins, we are limiting the quantity to approximately one million. We do not want to keep producing, producing, producing, simply to raise revenue for COJO. We have to weigh our responsibility of helping COJO with the greater responsibility of maintaining the integrity of Canadian coinage. I think this is more important.


William Heward Grafftey: Hogwash.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. The amendments are unacceptable for only one reason-that we cannot anticipate with certainty the price of the gold until we are ready to use it. We have to pay interest on the 16 tons of gold that we need to begin. We do not want to buy the gold until the last minute in order to avoid that interest. We will buy the gold at market price as it appears at the appropriate moment in the English market, at some time in the future to be determined by the Department of Finance, when we ask for the gold from the Bank of Canada.
If we are going to be skeptical about the quality of the gold coins we will have a hard time selling the gold coins because members have prejudged it without seeing them. This will create more skepticism among people who otherwise may want to buy them.


William Heward Grafftey: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi had his opportunity to make his annual speech. I wish he would just consider that a great feat until some time in the future-about seven years from now.
The other part of the bill deals with an area that quite properly concerns the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley. He is a good member and one who knows more-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Contrary to what the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi might think, I have never hesitated to say in public, on television and on radio, in his presence and in his absence, that he is dedicated to the Olympic Games, and more than any member of the House can understand what they are all about. I do not question his right to ask the type of questions he has asked. The only difference of opinion I have had with him is on the occasion and the forum. All I am doing is bringing in an amendment to a bill, which is hardly the occasion to ask the questions which dominated report stage the other evening when we had been all through them at committee stage and second reading. Had we stuck to the bill we would have been through with it.
The trademark or copyright section of the bill is needed as much as the coins. That is the reason why I did not accept his kind offer the other day under Standing Order 43. I do not know too much about parliamentary procedure, but I know if I had accepted that I would have been wiping out part of the bill.
We need this section to protect, with the minimum of fuss, the various Olympic symbols that will provide about $30 million or $40 million in royalties to COJO, in the same way as we did in Expo year. It is so designed that it
Olympic 1976 Act
will not hurt anybody who presently, by accident or intentionally, happens to have that symbol on an item he manufactures. What it will do is give us more opportunity to prevent goods now flowing into Canada-from the Far East if you like-bearing the Olympic symbol, or in some cases imitation stamps, the key chains and all the rest of it. Any legitimate manufacturer who was using the Olympic symbol prior to first reading of this bill can continue to do so as long as the use is limited to a particular item and not extended to items he does not normally produce.
What the bill will do is free COJO from having to spend time, money, and effort on the normal protection of copyright in the courts. They would have to list every item we want copyrighted, and the trade mark. Before that would happen the Olympics would be over and people would have taken advantage of the court cases and delays in order to use the Olympic symbol which, after all, has some value only because COJO is staging the games.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I have had the utmost co-operation from the opposition. That does not mean to say I have to accept the amendments they put forward in good faith and which were meant to do certain things to protect the value of the coins.
I will repeat the promise I made that before one coin is sold, people will know the quantity of gold in that coin, and at no time will that quantity change regardless of whether the cost of gold goes up or down. This is because we do not know today what the price of gold will be next spring when the coins come on-stream. A design must be chosen, machinery put in place, and marketing arranged and all the other things that go with the successful sale of gold coins. Every day is very important to us.
If the opposition can justifiably make a case that we should have come forward sooner, I am not arguing that. We thought it best to make a market survey before we introduced the bill. On the basis of that survey and appealing to the two chosen markets, one being Canadians who buy the coins to celebrate the Olympics and the other being those whose hobby it is to collect coins-I think by that happy ratio of two-sevenths and five-sevenths we will get approximately $15 million or $20 million for COJO. We do not anticipate any more, and certainly we will not be able to eliminate the deficit through the gold coins. The program was never intended for that. We have an obligation to do all we can to help the Olympics, however, provided we do so in a legitimate manner.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, before the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) resumes his seat, may I ask him a further question. May I have the assurance of the Postmaster General and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) that the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton in 1978 will be accorded the same preferential treatment being accorded the Montreal games? Also, will we be allowed to mint one gold coin to raise funds for our national function in 1978, and will the Postmaster General direct his department to produce a stamp, or series of stamps, commemorating the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton? I ask for the production of these stamps to be placed high on the list of priorities.

July 11, 1975
Olympic 1976 Act


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman and I have had much correspondence on the subject and much direct talk, as has the mayor of Edmonton. During the second reading debate either the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) made it clear that we intend to help the Commonwealth Games in a similar fashion-in all probability in the same manner. I might add that even if this bill had not been introduced, we should still help the games.
Let me now deal with the question of stamps. The hon. gentleman happens to be a stamp collector by hobby; I know that, because every time he sits next to me he takes the loose stamps on my desk. He does not sell them, and I suspect he does not buy his stamps at a newsstand. The hon. gentleman knows full well that it would be difficult to refuse the Commonwealth Games the sort of treatment which has been accorded the Calgary Stampede.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a brief question to the Postmaster General. How can one determine weight unless one can compare the weight of one object with the weight of another? How can one determine gloss or lack of gloss, unless one has some means for comparing? In the final analysis, would it not be simpler to have marked on the coins their gold content, be it 14, 18 or 22 carat? Could there not be some means of identification, so that it is not necessary to compare the two coins, and not necessary to have both coins before you at the same time?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this thought had occurred to me and that is why I spoke to experts in the field, not necessarily experts in my department. I spoke to experts from around the world and they pleaded with me not to do what the hon. member suggests but to do precisely what we are going to do. You know, lead is heavier than gold and heavier than the same volume of feathers. By itself, weight is not important. The important thing is to distinguish between that which is glossy and that which is dull. If you cannot distinguish between the coins you could go to a reputable outfit, like a bank or coin dealer. I suspect that if a bank sells you the wrong coin, it will be more than happy to rectify its mistake.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, I would add some comments on this legislation and on the general principles of holding the Olympics.
I listened carefully to every hon. member who spoke before me, and I heard some most valid remarks. I believe it is important to review what was said on this Olympic spirit and the intent of the bill. I shall try to remain within this context. Of course I feel tempted to make some remarks apart from the bill, but I will try to limit myself to positive and objective comments.
It is important of course to remind the House that this legislation is amending another bill we discussed a few years ago. To refute certain accusations levelled at members of the official opposition, it is worth mentioning that, at the time, there was a minority government, and the Progressive Conservative Party supported the government on a bill for the financing of the games through the minting of coins, the holding of lotteries and the issue of

stamps. Such co-operation existed, and I think it is important to state the fact. There was also on the government side openness to accept a number of amendments.
The impression was at the time that the legislation would be adequate. It seemed to meet the wishes of COJO's management, and I believe no member on either side of this House can refute that. At the time, it was felt that the legislation and other financial provisions would meet the requirements.
I listened carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal). Clearly he is quite happy that the facilities are in his constituency, and so much the better for him. He nonetheless suggested that we, on this side, had condemned COJO or accused it of dishonesty. I will say a few words on that. I do not believe such remarks were made by my colleagues, namely that COJO's directors had been dishonest. I do not believe so. But there is now concern on the other side of the House at the way things are going. The public is also concerned about the new turn of events. We are likely to be accused of having adopted a pessimistic attitude. Personally, I feel I am rather among the optimist, convinced as I am of the validity of these Games-I need not repeat that I support them fully-and those who know me are aware of this.
Now, I am willing to accept the figures quoted by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) as to the returns of the Games and the collective enthusiasm which expresses itself by gold coin purchasing and otherwise. However, there is not a single member of this House and especially from the Montreal who is not aware of the general concern of the Canadian people about the costs of the Olympic Games. I do not think either the Mayor of Montreal or Mr. Rousseau are dishonest men; quite the contrary. They are as enthusiastic as they have ever been, and we are lucky they still are, in view of the problems they have had to face. Today, newspapers are reporting a statement made by the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs:
The Mayor of Montreal will have to find his own solutions.
Reference is made to the fact that the initial estimates have been exceeded by several millions of dollars. Mr. Rousseau states, and I quote:
It is definitely no longer possible to have modest Games.
Those then, are as many statements that were not made by my colleagues, and statements which stir some concern in the minds of Canadians. They are wondering how such estimates could have been made. Were they wrong? I appreciate the difficulties encountered by COJO, both on account of strike and inflation. All the costs have gone up, there is no doubt about that. This morning, I enquired from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) about the difference between the original estimates for Mirabel and its actual cost.
It seems that costs will be up by 30 to 40 per cent. There is no doubt about that, and that is not the end of it. Now, I feel that this aspect needs to be underlined to prove to the House that if some hon. members have asked questions, if some hon. members have made statements, they have done so as Canadians who are greatly concerned, and who wish
July 11, 1975

to know how much the Olympic Games will cost. Mr. Speaker, getting a precise figure is no easy matter. But because the original estimates have now doubled, I do feel that it is logical, and in no way unfair, to worry and ask questions. So, considering this information deemed by us to be necessary, we had the chance, as members of this party, to meet Mayor Drapeau and Mr. Rousseau and ask them a certain number of questions. These questions were not negative ones; on the contrary, we wanted to know certain things while there were people who were trying to infer that the opposition was getting ready for a filibuster on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we spent a whole day in committee. There were several pertinent and intelligent questions asked. Now anything could be said about these long sittings. But I refuse to admit that a day spent in committee could be looked upon as a filibuster or an exaggeration when a bill is being considered, no matter which it is, and this one especially.
Then we spent another day together, and there were a number of speeches in which some members expressed their concern and asked some questions on the provisions of the bill and the future costs of the facilities. I think that such action is absolutely legitimate on the part of members of the opposition, and I also believe that it is all within the responsibility of the official opposition, whose task it is to get information from the government and make it known to the public. In my opinion, that is the responsibility of the opposition, and I rest convinced that we have fulfilled our duty with regard to this piece of legislation, as we have tried to do with other bills as well. Our party has the right to propose certain amendments. It was emphasized that Canadians had to be told that they were not being cheated or misled. We felt that the bill was not specific enough and did not provide Canadians with enough details.
The government saw fit to refuse our amendments. The Postmaster General earlier went further than usual when he talked about a somewhat more significant and specific identification for those two coins. And we hope, as indeed we were asking, that there will be a very specific identification on those coins to eliminate any possibility of dishonest speculation. So I think we were answering the desire of Canadians in a quite legitimate and honest way. Incidentally, I do not accept certain remarks that were made public and that we regret, accusing us of either wrongly or rightly playing politics on everything.
I do not believe the debates which lasted two days were marked with partisanship. On the contrary. There was a range of questions. There are witnesses in committee who represent different departments; the same questions were put to other officials. But there again I do not think this was done only to boycott or filibuster this bill. When the Postmaster General hinted publicly that it was impossible for him to withdraw this bill I had not understood the position of the minister, that it was impossible for him to reintroduce the bill. When the mayor of Montreal told us about the urgency of this legislation we understood him. And when the minister made that statement in the afternoon we had already decided in the morning to make a proposal to the government to have a very limited debate, as is the case today, and to show we were in favour of the
Olympic 1976 Act
principle whereby the federal government wants to help finance COJO operations. But that is a far cry from accepting a legislation without asking a question, I think we had that right and used it. Today, it is on a compromise basis accepted by party representatives that we also agree to close the debate this afternoon, taking into account the urgency of this legislation, for the benefit of COJO.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we regret the amendments we had proposed because we thought we could clarify this legislation and improve it. The government may think that it has within its group of officials the most competent persons to introduce a legislation that would reach perfection. If the government were tempted to believe that, I would have to remind them that at any rate we too have a certain ability. We have people to help us, to advise us, and we have felt the weaknesses and shortcomings of that legislation. Our only aim therefore was to serve the people when we moved our amendments.
I challenge any suggestion that the Progressive Conservative party might have opposed that bill for the sake of opposing or merely to hamper the Olympics which will take place in Quebec. That is absolutely untrue. I noticed earlier that my hon. colleague for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) requested a very special and identical help, or at least a similar help with respect to the games to be held soon in Calgary. I trust that the government will have the same straightforward attitude, and I am among those who, in that province, will advocate a contribution and generous subsidies to those games.
Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important in this debate on third reading to stress that as a political party we are in favour of the concept of financing the games, and I repeat that it is quite appropriate to emphasize from time to time that we are interested in the cost of those facilities without being systematically accused of asking negativistic questions.
I would also like to say that as a member of this party, I can assure you that we hope these Olympics will be a success. We also wish for the government to be financially involved, whether in respect of services, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) when he said that government investments and commitments already amounted to over $100 million through the action of several departments which will offer their services to make these Olympics possible. We thoroughly welcome that involvement, and I will even go further. I will urge the government to work out any form of financial help which might improve the services to be used by the athletes as well as the visitors.
Therefore, Quebec, under the circumstances will most certainly be visited by thousands of people next year and what is more important, and we should keep it in mind, this financing has already provided to certain provinces some tidy sums for amateur sports. We therefore hope that those programs will be beneficial not only to the COJO administration but also to the nine provinces according to their results.
So there is hope, Mr. Speaker, and it is in that frame of mind that we have been working on the preparations of the legislation. I also hope that in that frame of mind, we will not hesitate to support the bill which we find defective but which just the same meets an objective which is
7510

July 11, 1975
Olympic 1976 Act
to help the financing of COJO. We approve, Mr. Speaker, that co-operation as members of the House to enable COJO to finance the Games. We surely hope that the Postmaster General was right when he assured us a while ago that there was no problem at the level of those concerned, at the level of collectors and we also hope that the expectations of the minister will be fulfilled because indeed we must to some extent rely on his word. However, I have much regard for the minister who introduced the bill and I hope that he will constantly check and control to ensure the better-being of every people concerned.
In conclusion, I will say again that we are quite pleased to support the subject matter of the legislation. We had hoped that our amendments would have improved it. Finally, the government did not think so but we hope that the bill in its present form will fulfill the expectations of COJO and will be in the interests of COJO, helping it to serve the participants.
I almost forgot to mention that provincial participation as far as athletes are concerned is quite substantial and from a human point of view, more important than physical facilities.
Therefore, I hope sufficient amounts of money will be earmarked for the good training of these athletes. I said at the second reading stage that it was unfortunate that we did not provide for adequate preparation of our athletes for these Olympic Games.
Of course, nobody ever dreamed 20 years ago of those Olympics being held in Canada. But what are the government's responsibilities in the area beyond such a period? I would pinpoint amateur sport, preparation of athletes, general physical fitness of Canadians. I think that this event will at least make us realize the importance of physical fitness which must be the first priority of anyone wishing for his own satisfaction to stand some day for his country in various competitions. I hope that all this will induce us to make bigger effort to allocate the necessary amounts of money to provide the required facilities not only at the provincial level but also at the regional and local levels. It is in that way that I hope that this historical event for Canada will be a motivation and an unforgettable memory which will be kept in every Canadian's mind and which will lead us, as members of parliament, to do a lot more when we deal not only with Olympics but also with physical fitness for a population which wants itself to be healthy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in case there should be others who want to get in a sentence or two before the debate ends at four o'clock, I shall be very brief. I certainly do not intend to indulge in the kind of excitement which was displayed here earlier this afternoon.
It is not because of what is contained in this particular bill that we oppose it. It is, rather, because we want to continue to indicate our opposition to the whole idea of this country spending probably a billion dollars on the Olympics before they are over at a time when there are so many other things which, in our view, should be done as matters of greater priority.

By our opposition to this bill we are continuing to take the position we took in the first place-that Canada should not at this time be hosting the Olympics. That decision has been made, though, and whatever happens to the bill before us will not change the position. Therefore, I do not want to indulge in carping criticism, but the fact of the matter is that costs are rising all the time. However the money is eventually raised, it will come out of the wealth of this country; it is money we are spending on this project instead of on housing or on improving the pensions of older people and veterans. Day after day we are denied requests we make on behalf of such people because the money is not available. We think this was a wrong decision, and for that reason I shall be saying no when the vote on the motion for the third reading of this bill is called.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) is seeking the floor, and since he is the mover of the motion he can speak only if there is unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to thank the hon. members for giving me the opportunity to say a few words. I have not much time, just two or three minutes, but I want to thank the Postmaster General (Mr. Mack-asey) for introducing this bill on my behalf. I could not be here, because I was attending the Ministers' Conference in Japan, but the House will agree, I am sure, that I could not have done a better job than the hon. member for Verdun.
Although the bill gave rise to some controversy in the last few days, I am glad that we have reached an agreement and that the bill is now accepted by the House of Commons. As everyone knows, the Federal government's position has always been one of co-operation. We have supported the argument put forward by Mayor Drapeau and the Quebec Premier to the effect that the Olympic Games should be self-supporting and that we would take all necessary steps to make COJO self-supporting.
It is therefore in line with the principle underlying this policy that it was deemed necessary to introduce this twofold bill concerning gold coins on the one hand, and the protection of trade marks on the other, a last minute problem which was settled by the House of Commons. Hon. members will therefore be able to claim that to this day, they have discharged their share of the responsibilities. We want the Olympic Games to be a great success. Some reservations were voiced both during this debate and in committee concerning mechanisms.
Some hon. members, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), might indeed suggest that we should assume a greater responsibility. It had been agreed however from the start both by Mayor Drapeau and the Quebec Premier that we should only give them the means necessary for self-financing the Games and that, should there be a deficit, it would be taken care of by the Quebec government and the City of Montreal. And this is understandable, since the assets will remain in the City of
July 11, 1975

Montreal and the province of Quebec when the Games are over.
I think therefore that this is one more step towards establishing really good relationship between the three levels of government. Therefore, I hope that, when the Games are held in Montreal, come August 1976, we will realize that in spite of our three-level political system, both bilingual and multicultural, it is always possible to co-operate, help one another and come up with a successful project of which all Quebecers, Montrealers and Canadians may be duly proud.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being four o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to the order made on Thursday, July 10, to interrupt the debate and put the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those in favour of the 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 yeas have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being four o'clock the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.


Thomas Lefebvre: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Pontiac, on a point of order.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that there is general agreement to discuss notice of motion 41, to amend the Income Tax Act in order to grant deductions to married couples and single persons, in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The Chair understands that motions 2, 15, 19, 20, 34, 37 and 40 shall be allowed to stand at the request of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Personal Exemptions



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should study the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act for individuals to grant deductions of at least five thousand dollars for a married couple and two thousand eight hundred dollars for single persons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that this House has once again the opportunity to examine a problem such as the one mentioned in the motion that I have the honour to move today and which concerns thousands of Canadians.
We have often read in newspapers that the Social Credit Party of Canada is the party of the poor people, that the Social Credit representatives in Parliament are very close to the people and that they are interested mostly in the underprivileged classes. I have even heard a very affluent minister of this federal cabinet say the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, I am far from offended at these statements. On the contrary, I consider them to be compliments as we must not forget that there are much more underprivileged and unprotected people than there are rich people who can assert their rights and face the economic problems of modern life.
However, this does not mean that I ignore the rest of the population. On the contrary. I know that disparities are unavoidable in society but that, essentially, the needs of every individual and family are the same and that to meet these legitimate needs, people need a minimum income and that the state has no right to tax personal incomes to such a point that people are unable to meet their basic needs.
Man is not made for the state, as said a great British statesman, Sir Anthony Eden. He said these memorable words: "Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man." Statesmen forget this great truth and every one tries to apply it when considering legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the liberty of the individual to direct his own life is his most precious asset in a democracy. It should be impeded only if it becomes necessary to protect the freedom and rights of other individuals in the interests of society.
An individual is therefore a unique, exceptional being who acts and feels in his own way. He is a person who decided one day to stand on his own feet, work with his own hands and think with his own intelligence.
In our modern world, however, an individual must sometimes restrain his personal desires in order to cooperate with others for common purposes and to put his skills at the service of the community. As the population increases and the rhythm of life quickens, everyone depends on an ever increasing number of people in increasingly complex fields. That does raise disturbing thoughts on our individual deficiency. The individual who wants to give his share to society finds that it is surround-
29576-62'/2

July 11, 1975
Personal Exemptions
ed by all kinds of ever more complex organizations. We live in a world of governments and firms whose only care seems to be their own expansion and consolidation. Mr. Speaker, nobody, be he a worker or a director of the biggest company, is isolated. Everybody is part of an organization, carries out his task, gives or receives orders or works with others. Besides the individual, there is the family which is the vital cell of our society and, as such, has its rights which deserve to be recognized in facts to allow its fulfillment.
Nowadays, all sorts of factors shake the foundation of families. The present economic system compels many married women, mothers of a family, to work out of their home to get an additional income and give the family the opportunity to enjoy modern facilities. If they do not otherwise they pile up debts right and left for all sorts of very good reasons.
Mr. Speaker, who is going to challenge a family's right to own a house, to have it well furnished, well heated, well lighted, with a little garden, some trees and a lawn in summertime? If this is good for the family of the director of a big company, why should it not be so for the family of an employee in that same company? Why do we have so many problems with day nurseries nowadays, if not because the mother has to leave her home to help the father make a living, pay the education of the children, the rent or the house? I yearn to see the day when the noble role of the mother of the family will be really understood, when her right to a reward for her work at home will be recognized. This would require the passage of legislation authorizing the government to guarantee some income to the mother, over and above the father's salary, to ensure that the basic needs of each family member are met.
If the mothers and wives now working outside the home because they have to, were assured such an income while staying at home, I am convinced they would be happy to leave their jobs, thus freeing a great number of positions for young people.
Nothing is more shocking than to force the mother to get a job outside the home while unemployed big boys and girls stay home and are sometimes reluctant to pay their share of the family expenses.
Those situations did not always exist, Mr. Speaker. There was a time when as soon as a member of the family could earn his living, he could do so. But because of progress, of all forms of mechanization, there is less and less manual labour. Companies, private corporations of all kinds, even governments replace workers by machines whenever they can for every imaginable reason such as economy and efficiency.
To a certain extent, this contributes to the yearly increase of unemployed. I know quite well, Mr. Speaker, that some people do not like to work, but it is through our laws that always tend to maintain the status quo in our economic system, especially in the distribution area, that governments foster such a situation, and the same governments then resort to all kinds of inefficient measures to reduce the number of unemployed without success.
I say that we will never succeed. I am not an economist nor do I wish to be one. However, I am not blind and it will be useless to live during a number of years if we fail

to realize that we are not going anywhere with the present economic formulas. It is always back to square one.
If we want to move forward and to live in a society which will be increasingly just and peaceful, we will have to guarantee to all individuals and families incomes tailored to their needs. A good way to increase incomes of individuals and families is to let them enjoy a larger part of their daily income.
If it is fine for a company to have enough income to pay its expenses and make profits, plus a reserve, it would also be fine for an individual and a family to have enough income to pay current expenses and have some savings.
Therefore it is urgent to amend the Income Tax Act to increase the basic exemption to $5,000 a year. Given the present inflationary conditions which have changed much since October last year when I introduced this motion, I say that the exemption should be at least $6,000 for married couples and $3,000 for single persons.
If he were here, perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) would tell me that he favours such a measure. 1 know well his humanism. I am sure he would tell me that. But right after, he would ask me this question: Where will I take the money to administer the country? I will suggest a little recipe which will certainly give good results if he wants to try it.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the distribution of taxes is not only that of personal income tax. In other words, the income taxes from labour capital are clearly larger than corporate income represented by money capital, which is quite unfair and that is the reason for social unrest. Because there is not enough jutice and equality between the reward for money capital and the reward for labour capital, social unrest will be growing, Mr. Speaker, if we do not correct that situation.
Corporations, Mr. Speaker, can disguise a part of their revenues in the form of hidden reserves, but it is impossible for the individuals to do so. It is a hide-and-seek game, and in both cases it is not equitable.
Let's consider the case of people who head small concerns like the owners of garages, small garages, small grocery stores, or any small business. Those people work 15 or 16 hours a day to be able to make both ends meet, and often both husband and wife must work an equal amount of time, because they are unable to hire the necessary staff at the rate prescribed by Department of Labour regulations. At the end of the year, those who had to work double time are taxed as if it was the income of one worker only, at a much higher level, which discourages them and prompts them to give up business.
Mr. Speaker, I favour respect not only for the rights of families and individuals but also for their duties. One cannot have everything on the one side, while giving nothing oh the other side. We must be fair on both sides.
Those able to work should accept work as an instrument. It is a useful and necessary instrument which everyone has to use to succeed in life. All of us must accept it as such, and everyone must pay his way in our society.
Having considered the rights of the individuals and of the families, I must consider whether the same categories
July 11, 1975

of people contributed in the last few years to the progress and the continuing increase of the gross national product, on which the standard of living of Canadians must be based.
In 1933, the gross national product was 3.5 billion dollars, that is $325 per capita at the time, and the basic exemption for personal income tax purposes was $1,000, which is approximately three times as much as the value of per capita production.
In 1949, the gross national product was 16 billion dollars, or an average of $1,200 per capita, whereas the income tax exemption was $1,000. Let us admit that those were years of prosperity for the individuals and their families. Why should it be different today?
In 1970, the situation deteriorated. The gross national product reached $84 billion, or $3,900 per capita, while the tax exemption was only 25 per cent compared to 1933.
In 1974, the gross national product was $137 billion, which is pretty close to the present time, that is $6,000 per capita, and the average exemption was not even 25 per cent of the gross national product.
By quoting those figures, Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to prove that Canadians have worked and therefore individuals as well as their dependants are entitled to a better treatment as far as taxation is concerned. The government ought to compel the large corporations to pay the taxes required under the law. We do not want exceptions, only that they be treated like everyone else. If the government did not allow the big corporations to get exemptions on hidden reserves that no one knows about but which do exist, it could lower personal income taxes and still have enough revenue to run the country. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that those big compagnies contribute to the electoral funds of the old-line parties, but since those practices are now known to the public and exasperate lower and middle income groups, that is why the social order is threatened. That is why we are presently witnessing upheavals which really worry the serious onlookers of the social scene, while people in a position of authority urge some groups to flout the law and to riot. This did happen in this country. I think it is up to us to see that the situation is corrected before it is too late.
I also understand it is our duty as members of Parliament who hold the highest authority in our country to abandon old cliches and turn aside from the beaten track. Let us reject the old ways and adopt new policies which will enable the government to administer with justice both forms of capital which are essential to the nation's progress: the labour capital and the money capital.
It is our duty to ensure the mutual respect of each other's rights, to encourage an atmosphere of mutual understanding which is essential to the development of our country. That is why I suggest, in all sincerity and with some degree of insistence, that the whole tax base should be reviewed, that the basic exemption for personal income tax should be increased and that the government should recover the loss of income by taxing the hidden reserves of corporations, as I said previously.
If it is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, since this may be the keyword, for corporations to have reserves to reinvest in research and expansion, I feel that individuals too should
Personal Exemptions
have reserves that would enable them also to invest in housing, in the development of small businesses this would stimulate the housing industry and create jobs for our tradesmen, and thus, help to fight inflation and unemployment efficiently; in addition it would allow Canadians to hope for better days ahead. Then we will have stability, a fairer sharing of the tax burden; people, families will then be able to live better, not like millionaires, but decently in this vast and fair country of ours.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: I welcome the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to rise and join in the discussion of an appropriate level of exemption for personal income tax. It certainly is a most important matter. It is one that touches at the very root of the income of Canadians. [Translation]
At the outset of my speech, I want to say that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) is a colleague for whom I hold the greatest respect since the day I myself became a member of this House and, in my opinion, he is really a member who works very hard for his constituents by developing various and interesting ideas which he proposes very often to other members in this House. [English]
There have been a number of developments in the area of personal exemptions over the past several years. If we go back to the second world war we find that the exemptions were as low as $650 for single persons and $1,200 for married persons. These were then increased to the level of $1,000 and $2,000 around the year 1949 and remained fairly static at that level for the next 20 years.
It was really as a result of the Carter Commission report and recommendations that significant changes were introduced in respect of the exemption levels to the point that in 1975 the exemptions are now at the level of $1,878 for single taxpayers and $3,522 for married taxpayers. When this is considered in conjunction with the fact that there is a specific minimum tax credit of $200 applicable on the early portions of taxable income it really means that there is a non-taxable base of $3,477 for a single taxpayer in 1975 and as much as $5,017 for a married taxpayer.
It is interesting to note that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) amended upward the figures in his earlier motion. I assume he did that because he made the same calculation in respect of his earlier motion, and noted that what he wanted had already been achieved. I think this is a considerable and significant improvement over the exemption levels which existed as recently as five years ago.
In general I tend to agree with the observation made by the Carter Commission that exemptions should be sufficient to cover the non-discretionary use of initial income such as for things people cannot avoid buying. However, I do not think income tax exemptions should be high enough to ensure a-and I put this term in quotation marks-"subsistence" level of income mainly because this term is so difficult to define in any meaningful way. It is something like beauty which so much depends on the interpretation of the beholder. It is the relative position of

July 11, 1975
Personal Exemptions
individuals and families that is important. This point was emphasized in the Carter Commission report.
In passing I should like to refer to the cost of personal exemptions to the federal treasury. I think it is important to bear this in mind because, every time an additional exemption is given, less revenue comes in and this must be made up from some other source. This cost is not insignificant. In 1967 it amounted to $16.4 million. By 1972 it had risen to $29.2 million, or almost double.
The personal income tax is an extremely important component of the revenue system of our country. I am sure all hon. members appreciate that. In 1966-67 this source of taxation brought in $2.5 billion to our federal treasury. By 1973 this amount had risen to $10 billion, or four times as much. It now forms 40 per cent of the over-all government revenue. I say this again to emphasize that at all times we must be most careful how we tinker with this particular area of revenue, bearing in mind that it represents a large proportion of the over-all government revenue.
An important point we might bear in mind as well is that persons who are non-residents of Canada also pay Canadian income tax on any income they receive which has been derived in Canada. Furthermore, since 1972 we have added to the income tax base 50 per cent of all capital gains income. This is now included as part of the tax base.
One of the complications faced by taxpayers outside the province of Quebec is that both the federal and provincial income taxes are calculated on the same form although they are now computed by separate calculations. This gives rise to assumptions on the part of many taxpayers that they are being assessed by the federal government for the total amount of taxes they pay. I think this is a rather unfortunate attitude because it is very important, when talking about exemptions or the amount of taxes being paid, to consider the very significant inroads provincial governments now make in the area of personal income tax.
In order to have equity, taxes should be allocated according to one's ability to pay. This has led directly to our progressive tax rate system that has been developed over the years. Also, the tax base should endeavour to include all receipts, gains, and benefits realized during the year. This government has endeavoured to incorporate this latter recommendation, which again flowed from the Carter Commission report, in recent years. Today we have a multitude of deductions available, which I might add relate to the personal exemption field because they have been added to the personal exemptions. There are now deductions which were not available in years gone by. I think it might be useful to look at a few of these, some of which have been with us for years and some of which are fairly new.
We now deduct contributions to employee pension plans, premiums under the unemployment insurance plan, alimony payments, union dues, 3 per cent of salary to a maximum of $150, child care expenses, expenses involved in moving to a new place of employment, and tuition fees. In addition there is an automatic provision for averaging income which is done by the Department of National Revenue in years when one's income fluctuates to any great degree. I think these are all important and signifi-

cant matters which should be looked at when discussing the level of personal exemptions.
In conclusion, may I say that a married taxpayer can now find himself in a position where, if he has three children 16 years of age or older, the family may have an income of up to $7,000 without being subject to any federal income tax. I think this is a most significant improvement over the situation which prevailed some years ago. In my view we have achieved a great deal of the concept the hon. member for Bellechasse seeks. I do not think we should ever stop looking at this area.
I very much doubt there will ever be another period of 20 years in which the matter of personal exemptions will not be reviewed. We know they are now automatically indexed each year. I do think that the government has made a very definite move in this direction, and I would not subscribe to the idea of placing an automatic deduction in the tax statute but would rather prefer to keep the indexing system we now have. Again I suggest that the figures at which we have arrived now are extremely close to what the hon. member is seeking, and for that reason I do not think that the motion is one that would be worthy of lengthy debate in committee.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say it is a privilege for me to join the debate today on motion No. 41, and I would like to extend my compliments to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and to his party, the Creditiste party, for putting forward this motion, and particularly for the sentiments it conveys with regard to Canadian taxpayers.
Whenever proposals are made in the area of taxation to help the taxpayer, as they are from time to time, we find the usual reasons given each time for not allowing further tax concessions and, more often, for not allowing any further extension of social benefits. For example, there is the usual consideration of not decreasing government revenue, for whatever purpose that will serve. Related to that there is concern about having less money for government programs that are requested or will be requested in the future. There is also the argument that whenever more money is turned back to the public, this can have definite inflationary effects, particularly in inflationary times such as we are experiencing now.
Furthermore, it is argued that the government has already made many tax concessions recently, and in fact that is true. Many tax concessions, many financial concessions to the public, have in fact accomplished the same sort of thing as is proposed in the motion before us.
It might be argued that whereas it is certainly necessary in the case of lower income people to be relieved of the burden of personal taxation. On the other hand it is the right of everyone to pay taxes to contribute to the running of the country in proportionate amounts, of course, in amounts that people can afford to pay, even people at lower income levels.
Of course we know that the Creditiste party has been founded on certain financial theories of which they are duly proud, but with which our own party does not necessarily agree. I should like to concentrate on one point I mentioned, that in fact the present Liberal government
July 11, 1975

has made many tax concessions in recent years which bring the kind of relief which this motion seeks to offer to low income Canadians.
For example, the following changes have been made regarding the 1974 taxation year. The increase in the minimum tax cut from $100 to $150 will save taxpayers $380 million. This is with reference to the year 1974. It has been said that the new deductions at that time of up to $1,000 in interest income will result in a saving of $230 million, and that taxpayers taking advantage of the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan will save an estimated $100 million, not insignificant amounts when compared with the proposed raised tax deductions or basic exemptions.
For the 1975 taxation year the following changes were made in favour of the Canadian taxpayer. The increase in the federal tax cut from 5 per cent to 8 per cent, a maximum of $750, and the additional increase in the minimum cut from $150 to $200, will save the taxpayers an additional $615 million. The maximum has since been reduced to $500 in the most recent budget. The extension of the interest deduction to include dividend income will save the taxpayers an additional $10 million. The new deduction of $1,000 of pension income will save persons in receipt of such income an estimated $55 million. Finally, the ability to transfer to a spouse the unused portion of the age exemption will result in a saving for taxpayers of $35 million. Further, the removal of the limit for capital cost allowance deductions for rental construction was to result in a saving to taxpayers of an estimated $10 million, and taxpayers residing in provinces with which the federal government has collection agreements will enjoy further tax concessions as a result of a number of the above measures. For the 1974 taxation year this additional reduction was projected to have been $86 million, and for 1975, $127 million.
These are but a few of the many reforms in personal income tax benefits to low income taxpayers which have been made by this government over the last few years. They are not insignificant.
There is always the consideration of raising the basic exemption, but I think we can see also that there are certain difficulties with this approach. The government has considered and has implemented these approaches, and for this reason and for the reason that they amount to the proposals that are made in this motion-namely, $5,000 for a married couple and $2,800 for a single person-I would have to say that I cannot give my support to this motion, although once again I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse and his party for the noble intentions that the motion represents toward the low income taxpayer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, a while ago it was my intention to rise and begin by congratulating my friend on the spirit and intent of his motion. But then I heard those very words from the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) and he seemed to be using them to say to the hon. member, "You have a good idea, but I cannot support it". So I have to think of some other way to put it, because I do commend the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for raising the issue in his motion which is fundamentally that there
Personal Exemptions
should be certain minimum levels below which the incomes of Canadians should not be allowed to fall, or below which they should not be pushed by government tax collectors, either federal or provincial.
Therefore, I support the general intent of the hon. member's motion. He will know, as other hon. members will know, from points that we have made in previous debates on this subject, that we think a better way to achieve what is sought in this motion, a way better than just raising the exemption levels across the board, is to increase the tax credits made available to those in the lower and middle income groups.
When one simply raises the basic exemption levels, although that will help those just over those levels and be a still greater help to those who are still a bit further up, the benefit becomes a real bonanza to those up at the top. Therefore, I want to say that the way in which we think this goal should be achieved is not by a method that provides excessive tax reductions to the millionaires but by ways that provide actual tax reductions to those in the lower and middle brackets. However, in presenting his motion the hon. member was not drafting legislation. I suspect that if he and I were to sit down to try to work out legislation we would get along very well.
Another point that I wish to make is parallel to what I have just been saying. We are concerned not only with protecting the income levels of those who have incomes by not taking it away in taxation at the lower reaches, but we are concerned about those who do not have incomes that even come up to those levels. In other words, this motion confronts us again with the need in this country for a real and effective guaranteed annual income program.
The minimum levels suggested in the motion, or as the hon. member would amend it, are still too low in the light of today's cost of living. Whatever those levels may be- and I hope our studies and work in this field will soon produce some readings of appropriate levels-I trust before long we will be talking seriously not just about tax measures that result in not taxing too heavily those in the lower income groups but about measures that will guarantee certain reasonable levels of income to all the people in this country.
I have just one other comment, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook), although he did not press his point as a reason for objecting to this motion, did refer to an argument that is usually trotted out, that one has to look at the cost to the treasury of any radical change in the income tax exemption levels.
I am sure the House will forgive me for pointing out that an hour ago we were dealing with and the House voted for a measure which is part of a program to spend about $1 billion of Canadian wealth on the Olympic Games. But when we talk about doing something to promote the incomes and living standards of the ordinary people of this country then we are told we have to count the cost. I have heard this sort of thing too often. I do not like it, and I think it is time we paid more attention to all our people, and to our low income Canadians in particular.

July 11, 1975
Personal Exemptions


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in congratulating the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) on the spirit with which he introduced his motion and the warm sentiments that lay behind it. It brings out the practical problems and difficulties in tuning the tax system to carry out the kind of reform that the hon. member suggests, however.
The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Hal ton (Mr. Philbrook) have gone into some detail as to why the progressive tax system cannot lend itself to the type of immediate reform suggested in the motion, and pointed out that very large revenues would be lost.
The problem lies, of course, partly in the party to which the hon. member belongs. For many years it has been prepared to hand money out, notwithstanding the consequences to the economy. In the province of Alberta where the Social Credit Party had its original flowering, Bible Bill Aberhart used to conduct his campaigns in a most dramatic fashion. I am told by those who lived in Alberta in those days that when he addressed a public meeting he would have a huge cheque and a vast pen ready. He would call out, "Is there anyone out there who would like to come up and write a cheque for Alberta?" A young man would immediately run up-it was always the same young man-and write a cheque for $25 payable to every citizen in Alberta.
That young man rose through the ranks and later became premier of Alberta. When he arrived at that position of high eminence, however, the ink had run dry, and it was only the oil bubbling from the ground that allowed him to distribute largesse among the people in a conservative fashion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder if he realizes how much his voice and appearance right now remind some of us of Bill Aberhart.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: He
hasn't got the girth.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I am getting the girth. I am sure that is as close to being an insult as the House will permit, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The same premier fulfilled his obligation and gave the people a right to $25.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to suggest that same premier was able to take the people's money in the form of non-renewable resources and spread it very generally among the citizens of Alberta. It was not as a result of Social Credit theory, however, but because Alberta was blessed with great natural resources.
The problem is that Alberta has always been attracted to either wild or reactionary political theories, and has all too seldom shown wisdom in electing members to the House of Commons. I think that is a strike against it. I had the pleasure and privilege of living in Calgary for four years, and that was the one unattractive aspect of life there. One looked behind one's member of parliament and found a Tory rather than a Liberal. I was driven from the province by that sad state of affairs.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It will be the same for the next 100 years.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: As my hon. friends have endeavoured to show, the Government of Canada does not have the privilege of going to public meetings and writing big cheques. It has the responsibility for paying the bills for the enormous services that ordinary citizens enjoy today. I could refer in detail to the various health benefits, veterans' pensions and allowances, family allowances, the vast social welfare apparatus that has been created for the benefit of Canadians, as well as the other heavy responsibilities and demands. We have a tax system that will take account of the money that can be raised, take account of the equity for ordinary citizens and provide the kind of benefits that they need.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would have us engage in a form of irresponsible policy to carry out his social motivations. Nobody would question his sincerity, but it goes to the essential point- whether a government is going to be credible. I think this government has demonstrated this kind of fiscal responsibility. It is prepared to make the kind of hard decisions that were made in the last budget-that it is going to cut expenses and manage the affairs of the country in a responsible and prudent fashion.
Whatever the objectives we might have, to provide greater benefits to citizens and raise their income through making it possible for them to be spared payment of income tax, all the desirable things we may achieve have to be placed in the context of a responsible attitude.
Let me deal briefly with the irresponsibility of a provincial government which is supposedly imbued with Tory principles and a sense of responsibility. I am referring to the government of the province of Ontario.


Walter David Baker: That is a great
government.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The hon. member thinks it is a great government. One earnestly hopes it will soon be defeated. In the last few weeks it has tried to bolster its sagging image among the people of Ontario with a series of irresponsible moves, one of which is the reduction of sales tax for a limited period.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We don't want politics in this debate, do we?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: There you see a government acting most irresponsibly. It has reduced the sales tax for the rest of this year, and thus served notice that the reduction will remain in force until after the next provincial election. That government has imposed a spurious 90-day freeze on the price of oil. It thinks the people have been misled into thinking it is acting responsibly. I am sure most citizens of Ontario will tell the present governing party of Ontario what they think of it, by electing a provincial Liberal government.
Finally, we must consider that government's irresponsible behaviour on the question of Pickering airport. I know that people on both sides feel strongly about this matter. And, Mr. Speaker, my comments are not so far
July 11, 1975_______________COMMONS DEBATES________________________7517
removed from the motion of the hon. member for Belle-chasse as some may think. The Ontario provincial government entered into an agreement with the federal government. Under that agreement the federal government was to provide the airport, provide land planning services, and stand fully behind the concept of the building of the airport. On the eve of the coming provincial election the provincial government made the spurious declaration that it is unwilling or unable to pay for service roads. It seeks to embarrass the federal government and deny to the people a much needed extra facility. The provincial government has clearly shown its irresponsibility and unwillingness to carry out those programs which are necessary for meeting the needs of the people of Ontario.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the point of order, may I thank my friends for applauding my rising. I listened carefully to the hon. member. At one point, even though he strayed from the subject matter of the motion, I thought he would say something I could listen to; but then, after he strayed further from the subject matter, I changed my mind. I think his straying so far from the subject matter of the motion is improper. I wonder if the hon. member has conferred with his colleague the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), and asked him his feelings about the airport.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is using up my time by raising a point of order. There is no need for me to consult with my colleague representing the riding of Ontario, as he is entirely in agreement with me. The hypocritical, spurious behaviour of the government of Ontario has nothing to do with-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) will agree that he has strayed somewhat from the motion before the House. He indicated earlier that his comments were not as far removed from the subject matter of the motion as one might think. I did not note clearly the relevance of his remarks and perhaps, when concluding, the hon. member might wish to return to the subject matter of the motion.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Personal Exemptions


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised a moment ago, I simply want to say that I appreciate the comments on the motion. But when we were hauled to Toronto, the airport and all, I think we moved away at great speed from the motion, and I would like it to be adopted since I consider it is reasonable.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: If I may conclude, Mr. Speaker, I say that it is a government's duty to act responsibly, and I was showing the manner in which a certain government was acting totally irresponsibly. I suppose I was carried away with my indignation over the fraudulent behaviour of the Davis government.
I conclude by saying that I know the hon. member for Bellechasse has the noblest intentions in mind in bringing forward this motion. The Government of Canada, guided by the prudent stewardship of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), will no doubt heed what the hon. member said. I also feel certain that the Minister of Finance will continue to maintain a responsible posture in any dealings concerning our income tax structure.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) stressed the notion of the importance of the family in our society, and the importance of maintaining a family's income. The government agrees with many other things the hon. member put forward, as do all members on my side of the House. For that reason this government, under budgetary proposals, has removed hundreds of thousands of family people from the income tax rolls. For this reason, as well, it has reduced income taxes for many. The reductions for lower income families have been larger than those for higher income families. In addition, the government has introduced income indexing, so that exemptions rise as the cost of living rises. It has done all this because it has kept in mind the very principles enunciated by the hon. member for Bellechasse.
I see you rising, Mr. Speaker. I think that tells me something about the time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Monday, July 14, 1975