1975-06-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the disappearance on June 1, on a flight from Fort Nelson, B.C. to Watson Lake, Yukon Territory, of a helicopter carrying the pilot, Mr. Young of Abbotsford, British Columbia, and a passenger, Mr. Seagrise of Woodstock, Ontario.
In view of the fact that the provisions carried on this flight and the experience of the pilot in survival capability could assure survival for a sustained period of time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the Minister of National Defence order the immediate resumption of the full-scale search that was suspended on June 11.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration has received from all over the country urgent pleas for the continuation of successful LIP programs, and particularly such a representation from the Metro Toronto works group, which employs a large number of community workers. In the light of the warnings of the OECD that unemployment in Canada is likely to continue at a very high level, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That the. government be instructed to review the LIP program and to renew grants to projects which have proved successful and which are in danger of being cut off prematurely.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of vital concern and utmost urgency. In view of the fact that the United States Congress subcommittee on appropriations will be voting further funds for the Garrison diversion unit by June 25, and in view of the fact that memos released this week by Congressman William Moorhead show that the United State bureau of reclamation has hidden facts from the State Department and the IJC, which is the group in which the Canadian Government has placed its confidence to protect Manitoba river systems from becoming sewers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to request from President Ford that an immediate moratorium be placed on the Garrison diversion unit until such time as all doubt is removed from the validity of our assurances about Canadian water quality.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED PHYSICAL FITNESS COURSE FOR MEMBERS OF PRESS GALLERY IN VIEW OF RESULT OF BASEBALL GAME-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43. The urgency of the motion is self-explanatory.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):

June 20, 1975
Oral Questions
That this House urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to establish a crash course in physical fitness for the youthful members of the parliamentary press gallery who last night once again demonstrated their inability to defeat geriatric members of parliament in the annual soft ball match, the score being M.P.s 12: press 9.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to make a motion under Standing Order 43. We must get back to weightier matters than those to which the previous member referred!


An hon. Member:: They don't come any heavier than that!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In light of the fact that extensive security precautions will have to be taken in the eventuality that the PLO is granted admission into Canada for the UN conference in September, and in view of the daily conflicting reports on the status of the matter it is of some importance that the government's decision in this regard is forthcoming. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the federal government announce as soon as possible its intentions regarding the admission of the PLO into this country for the supposed purpose of attending the UN conference in September and that when deciding, the government take into consideration the serious protestations of a number of prominent parliamentary members and other notable Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 4 cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and relates to the conference held on the 19th of this month in London. It was a conference with countries exporting nuclear facilities and techniques at which Canada is reported as having been present. My question does not relate to the conclusions of this conference, but I should like to know if Canada has proposed a moratorium for at least a limited period on the sale of nuclear facilities and

techniques in order to provide time for the exporting countries to work out adequate safeguards?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs will attempt to deal with the question.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware the government has been making a concerted effort to ensure internationally that all nuclear co-operation be exclusively for peaceful purposes. It has had consultations to this end in various capitals, including the Prime Minister's discussions with world leaders. Canadian officials have been actively involved in discussions on this vital question. The discussions which have been reported in the newspapers should be seen in this context. The discussions are confidential and are concerned with common problems of the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the exchange of views at the working level.


SALE BY GERMANY TO BRAZIL OF EQUIPMENT FOR FULL NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE-POSSIBLE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND CHANCELLOR
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, granted that the meeting is confidential but this should not prevent the government of Canada indicating to parliament what the position is. Since reference has been made to the Prime Minister meeting with world leaders, I should like to ask whether he took up with the Chancellor of Germany the question of the contract which that country has made with Brazil to sell an entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel enrichment equipment and reprocessing facilities, a country that has not signed even a non-proliferation agreement. Did the Prime Minister discuss this matter with the Chancellor; or, if this matter did not come to the attention of the Prime Minister at that time, has Canada, since then, made any protest or representation to the government of West Germany on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not discuss that particular contract with the Chancellor. I confess that it had not been brought to my attention, perhaps because it was not widely known at the time. But I discussed the general subject at length with the Chancellor and repeated to him the position I had taken with other European and world leaders, to the effect that increased Canadian safeguards would only be effective if other countries which had nuclear capabilities were willing to increase their own safeguards and that we should all be losers if the safeguards applied by one country were outflanked by the actions of other countries. That is the tone of the discussions I had with the Chancellor and, I repeat, with other leaders. We agreed generally that it would be in the interest of all if we could establish workable safeguards at the bilateral level and multilaterally. The conference in London, Mr. Speaker, is discussing this very type of thing, so that Canada is not alone in seeking to strengthen these safeguards.
June 20, 1975


PROPOSAL THAT COUNTRIES AGREE NOT TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR RECYCLING EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO SALE OF REACTORS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the Prime Minister and Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs will agree that the answers we have heard so far are in the nature of generalities. May I ask the Prime Minister a specific question about Canada's own attitude? Is Canada prepared to demand of South Korea, Argentina or any other country to which it is trying to sell a CANDU reactor this: that the recipient country will not acquire or buy facilities which can be used for the recycling of spent rods or plutonium made in atomic reactors without, at least, the approval of the appropriate international agency?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are asking for more than that. We are asking for undertakings from any countries which want to acquire nuclear technology or nuclear materials from Canada. We are asking them to undertake not to have any explosive device. The techniques the Leader of the Opposition has referred to are ones that can lead to the separation of plutonium and, eventually, to explosions, peaceful or otherwise. That is why we have made it clear that Canada wants the end result to be the assurance that there will be no nuclear explosions, and as far as we are concerned there is no such thing as a peaceful nuclear explosion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the subject, may I ask the Prime Minister if he can answer my question specifically, and not repeat generalities, the general demand that there be no atomic explosions? As recycling facilities constitute a great danger, can the Prime Minister say if there is to be included in the agreement with South Korea or any other country a specific prohibition against that country's acquiring recycling facilities without the approval, at least, of the appropriate international agency?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have it indicated here that Korea has undertaken the obligation to the international community not to develop or acquire nuclear explosives of any kind. That just repeats my point, which the hon. member seems to consider a generality. It seems quite specific. An undertaking has been given by a specific country with which we are having a nuclear exchange. It has given the undertaking that it will not acquire any explosive capability, which is the end result we want to achieve. I see the Leader of the Opposition shaking his head. Perhaps I have missed his question. I will attempt to answer it again, if he likes.


REASON FOR SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA- REQUEST FOR TABLING OF SAFEGUARD AGREEMENT
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are our balance of payments difficulties so bad that we must sell the makings of atomic weapons to South
Oral Questions
Korea, one of the most heavily armed, militaristic and unstable countries in the world?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our sale of a nuclear reactor to Korea has nothing whatever to do with our balance of payments situation. We would make the same decision regardless of what that situation might be. We are undertaking to negotiate with Korea on the basis that Korea has given undertakings, not only to us but to the world community, that they will only use nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. I do not know what else we could get by way of undertakings. Perhaps the hon. member would like us to go to war.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I consider that answer beneath contempt. The situation seems to have changed a little in the last few days. We now have the Prime Minister assuring us that South Korea promised they would not use reactors to develop explosive capabilities. South Korea has stated if they cannot remain under the United States umbrella, they will develop their own bombs. In an answer to a question on the same subject a few days ago, the minister prattled about our nuclear safety requirements being the toughest in the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary, he should ask it.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: We only have his judgment. Will the minister table these safeguard requirements so that the House and Canada can judge for themselves?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I reiterate the minister's undertaking. When negotiations are completed, we will table these.


Mr. Baldwin:: You have two unstable governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the assurances the minister has given, including his statement this morning over CBC radio, that he has taken to cabinet the recommendations in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs calling for improved pensions for Canadians who were prisoners of the Japanese and for a new scale of pensions for all other Canadians who were prisoners during World War 11, is the minister hopeful that he will be able to present legislation on these recommendations before the summer recess?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct, I did

June 20, 1975
Oral Questions
make a statement over the radio this morning. However, I did not say exactly what the hon. member has said. I said I would be glad to get this recommendation processed in my department and I would be presenting it to cabinet. As progress reports come in, I will inform my hon. colleague. If we have a summer recess, I think it might be difficult for me to be able to do this before that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister is taking these recommendations through the mill, both in his department and before cabinet, will he be doing that with the recommendation concerning an improvement in the pension position of widows of veterans?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be processing the recommendation that was made to parliament. Whatever is in there, I will be taking to cabinet.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
On June 17, I asked the minister for the date of the first request for federal aid by the government of Quebec to the Donohue Company and if there were new developments in this matter. The minister said that he would give me the answer in a couple of days. As today is June 20,1 hope that the minister has the answer this morning.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I was about to cross the floor of the House to give the information to the hon. member. I had it yesterday and was expecting a question from him then. I do not have the exact date. It was some time early in the month of May. Negotiations are still continuing between representatives of my department and the Quebec government. I understand the company is involved as well. These discussions are being carried on, I presume, in Quebec City and subsequently the recommendations and reports will be coming to me here in Ottawa.


COMMUNICATIONS
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications dealing with the alleged state of near-hostilities in the Province of Quebec-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Did you rent that suit for the weekend?


Gerald William Baldwin: I just bought it before the budget comes down!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: My question concerns cable television in the province of Quebec, bearing in mind that federal jurisdiction is founded on a Privy Council decision following a reference to the courts made 40 years ago and recognizing that the state of broadcasting and the electronic media have allegedly developed to some extent since that time. Would the minister consider discussing with all his provincial colleagues a form of reference to the Supreme Court so that there might be a broad reference for judicial decision on this matter rather than what I would consider to be the very narrow scope of the reference involved in the litigation which now seems likely to go before that body.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. We have already tried to do what the hon. member suggests. On the advice of the legal advisors of the Crown, I wrote over a year ago to all provinces to suggest that we go together to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this proposal was not accepted by all provinces. However, the legal advisors had told us that action by the federal government alone would perhaps not have the expected results and that the second best solution was the one that we are now implementing, that is that when a concrete case would come up, the government should do what it must do-take action to enforce the law.


Gerald William Baldwin: Has the minister given consideration to the fact that there is a right under the Supreme Court Act for the federal government itself to make a reference to the Supreme Court and then allow the provinces to intervene to the extent they see fit?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the last part of my answer, I tried to reply in advance to this question. Maybe the hon. member did not understand? The legal advisors of the Crown did not recommend this option as likely to give the results that everyone wants, that is to clarify the federal jurisdiction in this matter.


CABLEVISION-SUGGESTED POLITICAL SETTLEMENT OF JURISDICTION RATHER THAN LITIGATION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Communications.
Since the present situation between the Quebec and Ottawa governments is now serious, and since his Quebec counterpart repeated the day before that he still believed in the possibility of a settlement at the political rather than the judicial level, is the minister willing to reconsider his position along the lines suggested by his Quebec counterpart rather than favouring a rigid line that could have serious consequences?
June 20, 1975


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should as always look at the whole issue. It is quite true that the Quebec minister made that statement, two days ago, but a year ago he suggested: "There is only one thing left to do, that is going before the courts. The federal Minister of Communications should either remain silent or bring us before the courts". And a year before that he had stated: "The courts will never settle the issue". So the hon. member should choose which of those successive viewS of the minister we should consider.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I am asked for the Progressive Conservative party's position. I would answer that we respect provincial jurisdictions.
Since the issue is already before the courts, why did the government choose to take immediate action rather than wait for a ruling by the Supreme Court?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, although I was not referring to his party, the hon. member stated his party respects provincial jurisdictions. I hope they also respect federal jurisdiction. I would indicate once more he does not seem to be well aware of the whole matter. We did not initiate the move that led to this conflict. If he looks at the facts, he will see that as regards that lower St. Lawrence territory the CRTC had already issued a broadcasting license to Mr. Dionne. It was only months later that the Quebec board, acting in our view outside the scope of its powers and jurisdiction, licensed another broadcaster. So the Quebec board went against the CRTC, legally empowered to issue licenses.


SUGGESTED CO-ORDINATION OF EFFORTS OF CANADA AND UNITED STATES IN ATLANTIC SEABOARD AREA
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government's attention been drawn to the recent meeting between the eastern premiers and the governors of the northeastern United States regarding co-ordination of energy efforts of both Canada and the United States that urges greater assistance for both federal governments in such efforts? If so, what initiatives does this government plan to take in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we knew about the meeting. As a matter of fact, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources received an invitation to attend, and had expected to attend, had he not been obliged to represent the government in Japan at former Prime Minister Sato's funeral, thereby leaving earlier than had been planned. We do have, of course, representatives at the conference, and I will be looking forward to receiving their resolutions and recommendations which we will study with great care.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the government give consideration to co-ordinating
Oral Questions
the work of the Fundy tidal power review committee with efforts that are underway in Maine with regard to tidal power at Passamaquoddy Bay, the Dickey-Lincoln hydro project and the development of a transmission grid between eastern Canada and the northeastern United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take that to be a recommendation and I will make sure it is drawn to the attention of the federal minister.


FAMILY PLANNING-REASON FOR FAILURE TO FILL POSITION OF DIRECTOR AND REDUCTION OF BUDGET
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's statements both inside and outside of this House expressing his government's support for family planning as being one answer to the abortion problem in this country, would the minister explain to the House why it is that the position of director of family planning services in his department has remained unfilled and vacant for one year; and further, why it is that in his own budget family planning funding has not increased even in accordance with inflation, let alone with regard to the need for new programming in family planning?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the position which the hon. member is referring to comes under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, which has tried to hire the most competent specialists. Up to now, it has failed in its efforts to find a suitable person from within the public service to fill this position. We have therefore been compelled to place ads in news media, and I am advised now that this position should be filled within the next few days.
As to the second part of the question, may I remind the hon. member that the estimates for the family planning program were very considerably increased only last year. The rate of increase is in fact much higher than those of the cost of living or the Gross National Product. It is dangerous to limit an analysis simply to the budget of this program. One must also take into account the contributions the federal government is paying through the public assistance program, the hospital insurance program, the medical assistance program to provincial family planning and health and welfare programs generally. As a matter of fact, when one takes into account federal government contributions in all these areas, one readily realizes that the increase in federal government contributions have been very appreciable indeed over the past few years.

June 20, 1975
Oral Questions


FAMILY PLANNING-REASON FOR REDUCTION IN FUNDING OF FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his speech but he did not answer the question. My second question is this. In view of the fact that because of the lack of funding the Family Planning Association of Canada has had to cut back its staff and has had to discontinue the distribution of a national newspaper which supports family planning, would the minister advise why it is that their request for funding was reduced? How does this square with his well known position of supporting family planning when, in fact, he has not granted the request of the Family Planning Association of Canada and they have had to curtail their services?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the financing of the Family Planning Association of Canada has not been reduced. On the contrary, I believe it has been increased from last year. Still it does not mean that the government can accede to the requests of all organizations for whatever budget they submit. Each year, the government receives many applications for subsidies amounting to several hundred million dollars and we must review those requests in the light of available funds. I must also remind the hon. member that the Canadian government is not the only possible source of financing for a voluntary organization such as the Family Planning Association of Canada. There are other levels of government and the possibility of private funding. I hope that private organizations do not solely rely on the Canadian government for financing.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. One group that the minister funds is called Serena, which promotes the rhythm method of birth control and is funded to the tune of $209,000. Would the minister reconsider his priorities, in view of the fact that Serena promoted only one form of birth control whereas the Family Planning Association promotes all forms of birth control, in terms of the respective grants that are given to each association?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the hon. member that he is careful not to mention the amount awarded to the Family Planning Association of Canada, which is much more considerable than the one given to Serena.
Second, I will be happy to send him a publication distributed by Serena, which he will advantageously read to realize that that publication issued by Serena provides explanations on all forms of contraception and birth control, and not only on the technique he referred to. He will realize that Serena does not confine itself to the technique he indicated in his question.


FINANCE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It has been reported that when the Minister of Finance spoke recently to the Investment Dealers Association he encouraged Canadian businessmen to make an effort to attract funds from the oil surplus countries and said that for that purpose they would have to get to know people in Jidda, Tehran and Kuwait as well as they knew people in New York, London and Paris. Can the Minister assure all Canadian businessmen who might want to follow his request that they will actually be able to go to Jidda, which is in Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait for this purpose no matter what their religion or origin may be?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is asking me a question that has properly to be answered by other countries.


LABOUR'S SHARE OF NATIONAL INCOME-MINISTER'S VIEW OF REASONABLENESS OF LABOUR'S DEMANDS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In the minister's budget speech in February of 1973 he stated that he wished to see labour receive a fair share of the real growth of our national income, but that he expected them to be reasonable in their demands. Is it the view of the government that labour have been reasonable in their demands, especially considering that labour's share of net national income was 73 per cent in the first quarter of 1973 and 73.3 per cent in the first quarter of 1975?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely, the hon. member realizes that he is seeking the minister's opinion rather than information.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the minister has claimed that wage increases in Canada are rising faster than in the United States. In view of the fact that U.S. labour enjoys 76.3 per cent of the national income against 73.3 per cent in Canada, which is down from 75 per cent four years ago, can the minister indicate to the House what the government considers to be a fair share of the national income for Canadian labour under present circumstances? In other words, what is a proper target, keeping in mind present circumstances in this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of judgment that I will give to the hon. gentleman on Monday night.
June 20, 1975


DROP IN CASH BALANCE-EFFECT OF ADVANCES TO COVER UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance explain the drop in government cash balances since January of almost $2 billion?


John Napier Turner: Yes, I can do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether the hon. minister is able or willing to do that at the present time, surely the remaining 17 minutes of this question period would not be sufficient to allow him to do it properly. I wonder if the hon. member would ask a more specific question.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, let me rephrase my question. To what extent has the drain in cash balances been due to extensive advances made to cover UIC benefits?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the prime reasons for the fall in cash balances were the cashing of refund cheques as a result of the November budget and the fact that no debt issue was placed by the government of Canada during the period.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, does the minister anticipate that he will have to raise additional funds by the issuing of debt instruments to finance anticipated higher levels of unemployment in the next 12 months?


ENRICHED URANIUM-POSSIBLE INITIATION OF DEBATE ON SUBJECT-FEASIBILITY STUDY ON CANADIF PROJECT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is further to questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the proliferation of nuclear substances, of which enriched uranium is one. In view of the commendable statement by the Minister of the Environment on June 17 that "we should open up the debate on uranium enrichment", I would ask the Prime Minister what steps the government is prepared to take to initiate this debate before the establishment of an enriched uranium plant in the James Bay area becomes a reality?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to a debate in the general sense, the debate has been opened and the minister has contributed to it. I myself have dealt with this subject many times in the House and in discussions with governmental authorities, but the opposition is welcome to join in the debate anytime they want to show their concern.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on May 22 I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he had received a copy of the feasibility study on the Canadif project, and he replied he had not. Has the government yet received a copy of the feasibility report on this enriched
Oral Questions
uranium project, and is the Prime Minister now prepared to put forward the government's position on it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire whether we have received the report. I do not know.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who looks as relaxed this morning as usual. In view of the fact that Stelco was involved in the Canstel study commissioned by his department concerning a proposed new steel complex on the Atlantic coast, and in light of the very negative comments of a very senior official of Stelco within recent days regarding such a proposed complex, may I ask the minister what progress he has to report to the House on this subject?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence I would address it to his parliamentary secretary, if I may. My question is further to one asked three days ago by my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, and it concerns the calling off of the search for a missing helicopter with two men aboard, one Mr. Allan Seagrist from Woodstock, Ontario, and the other, Mr. Fred Young from Abbotsford, B.C. To what extent has the minister's office received telegrams, petitions and other communications indicating deep public concern over the discontinuation of this search?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Oxford for giving me advance notice. Representations have been made to the minister's office, and I should say that the minister replied, as the hon. member indicated, to a similar question earlier this week by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. An intensive search was conducted for 10 days covering 58,000

June 20, 1975
Oral Questions
square miles visually and over 40,000 square miles electronically. Over 470 hours were flown by both military and civilian aircraft. Our control centre in Victoria, B.C., reports that the area has been thoroughly searched, but while the search intensity has been reduced it has not been abandoned. All pilots, military and civilian, traversing the area have been asked to stay on the alert and continue the search. I can only reiterate what the minister said earlier, that unless there is substantive new evidence the intensive search will not be continued. Finally, I would like to say that in view of the very humanitarian aspects of this unfortunate incident, if the hon. member has any substantive new evidence to offer I would be most willing to take it up with our personnel on behalf of these constituents.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, in view of the obvious ground-swell of deep public concern over this matter, as evidenced by numerous representations, including a telegram I received this morning from the president of Local 636 of the UAW on behalf of its 2,500 members, and also a telephone call from the management and staff of Standard Tube of Woodstock, all indicating serious concern-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Bruce Halliday: I am just coming to the question, Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member but his question.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, this is new evidence to which the parliamentary secretary did not refer. In view of the fact that the helicopter was last seen some 25 miles to the north of and off its expected course, and this was indicated to me by the president of the helicopter company, will the parliamentary secretary prevail upon the minister to re-initiate this search immediately, concentrating on the areas north and adjacent to that which has already been well covered, as explained by the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has any further information perhaps he could give it to the parliamentary secretary privately.


PROPOSED BANNING OF USE OF BROWN ASBESTOS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the government's decision to ban the importation and use of blue asbestos, in view of the urging by Ontario's health department to also ban brown asbestos, and in light of a statement by Dr. Joseph Cowle, head of the industrial chest disease service and an expert on asbestos diseases, the two United States studies found a connection between the exposure to brown asbestos and mesothelioma, a rare chest cancer, is the minister prepared to reconsider his original

decision, and will he recommend to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the banning of brown asbestos as well?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member doubtless knows, very little brown asbestos is imported into Canada. My officials are now in the process of looking into the matter to review the whole situation. We have already adopted regulations making the use of another type of asbestos illegal. I intend to release the findings of that study as soon as my officials have made their report. I can assure the hon. member that if anything indicates that the use of that asbestos is a health hazard, we will not hesitate to follow the same procedure as in the past.


PARTICIPATION OF UNIONS IN MONITORING HEALTH AND SAFETY CONDITIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the latest breakthrough in industrial relations whereby the United Steelworkers of America will be participating with INCO officials in monitoring health and safety conditions and in developing preventive measures with respect to their operations, is the government prepared to follow that good example with respect to industries under federal jurisdiction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is not a matter of jurisdiction but a matter of bilateral negotiations between unions and companies. I encourage them to follow the example cited by the hon. member.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In reply to my question on Tuesday, the Minister of Justice said the government would consider the matter of financial assistance for the parents of Mary Steinhauser, the classification officer killed last week at the British Columbia penitentiary, so that the interests of this girl could be represented at the inquiry headed by Mr. Justice Farris. I should like to ask the Prime Minister today, in view of his references to the "just society" and the government's frequent generosity in granting financial assistance to many individuals and groups for various deserving objects, whether he can explain to the House why on Tuesday the government sent a telegram to the family's lawyer in Vancouver in which the government states that it will not provide any funds for the parents of Mary Steinhauser so that these old age pensioners can protect the name of their daughter at this inquiry? I ask this particularly since similar lack of action
June 20, 1975

by the government may have contributed to the killing of Miss Steinhauser by the guards or the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In his trips abroad over the past few months, did the minister have an opportunity to discuss Canada's economic situation with leaders and officials of OECD and, if so, was he made aware of their belief that Canada could benefit from a mandatory incomes policy and that they felt it may be desirable to pass legislation to impose such a program without delay?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I met the secretary general of OECD, but we were talking about other matters last week. However, I have, as the hon. gentleman has, reports of the OECD review of various countries. I was interested to see that the report also says that during 1974 domestic demand in Canada held up better than average for OECD and much better than in the United States. Declining exports, because of worldwide recession and declining housing starts, were the principal source of weakness. The sharp increase in the current account deficit was largely cyclical, reflecting the weak position abroad and the relatively strong performance in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANNUAL REVIEW BY OECD-CO-OPERATION OF DEPARTMENT IN PREPARATION-OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT ON REPORT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Bearing in mind that OECD reports are based heavily on input from government sources in the country under review, would the minister indicate to what extent his officials co-operated in preparing the current OECD annual review on Canada, and did his officials have an opportunity to comment on the views of OECD on mandatory controls and the projected 8 per cent unemployment level in 1976 for Canada?


John Napier Turner: I will have to check this out more thoroughly, but I would imagine that in accordance with the practice followed by our officials in dealing with the International Monetary Fund, OECD and other international organizations, they would have co-operated in supplying factual material.
As to the comment on the draft report involving policy decisions, I think they would leave that to the minister.


Gerald William Baldwin: Did they check it with Simon?
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO DENIAL OF BAND COUNCIL FUNDS FOR FAILURE TO RATIFY LOCAL GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES BY JULY 1
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that it is not often that an opposition backbencher is called upon to replace the Prime Minister, such as was the case at a moment of great national need and to protect the honour of the country last night when I was called upon to replace the Prime Minister in right field, and bearing in mind that this was following a misjudgment of the play on the part of the Prime Minister, could he assure the House that he will not misjudge the situation again and that the funds for those Indian band councils which will not have ratified the guidelines by July 1 will not be cut off but that the band councils will be given ample opportunity to review these guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the government's record in dealing with the Indians is even better than my excellent batting average of 333.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Due to conflicting statements and information being withheld on the damaging effects the Garrison diversion project will have on Manitoba waters, and in light of the evidence I presented to the Prime Minister on two occasions to support this charge, what action will the government be taking other than sending a note to IJC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not followed the latest developments in this matter, but in reference to an earlier question-I believe a motion put earlier today-I would like to remind the hon. member that I did raise this matter with President Ford directly when I met him in the month of December. Our ministers and officials are doing everything they can to ensure that Canada's interests will be protected.


OIL AND NATURAL GAS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRICE WILL BE MADE IN THE HOUSE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Inasmuch as the Prime Minister made clear that an announcement will be made with respect to the pricing of crude oil and gas by Monday, can he assure the House that it will be made in the House?
6958

June 20, 1975
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member that assurance.


COMBINES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister tell the House whether an investigation is underway into alleged bid-rigging in the James Bay hydroelectric project and, if so, can he tell the House how long this investigation has been underway and whether charges will be made?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member surely knows that the head of the detection and investigation division is required to make an inquiry every time he has reason to believe that the law has been violated. According to a long tradition in this House, the minister can neither confirm nor deny that an inquiry is under way or to be held.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, 1 will direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It is my understanding that Russian trawlers were spotted this week by Nova Scotia fishermen seining herring at night and dragging herring by day off Seal Island near the mouth of the Bay of Fundy, approximately five miles off the coast of Canada. Will the Prime Minister investigate this matter since this action is contrary to ICNAF regulations and it is one of the reasons for our declining fisheries resources?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will see that the allegations are referred to the proper sources.


IMMIGRATION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the House whether a decision has been made as yet by the cabinet on the status of the PLO group attending the UN crime conference in Toronto in September and, if not, when is it expected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I expect that an announcement will be made in this regard within a couple of days on the return of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from Japan.


FINANCE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which is somewhat supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. Does the minister intend to make a statement to the House on his recent visit to the International Monetary Fund and the meetings that were held there in so far as Canada's position is concerned? Will he be doing that on Monday or will he reserve that for another time?


John Napier Turner: I will make some reference to the meetings held last week on Monday night in the budget. As the hon. gentleman will recall, I tabled the communiques of both the international committee of the International Monetary Fund and of the development committee, which is the joint committee, of the World Bank and the IMF.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,708, 2,094, 2,323, 2,457, 2,464 and 2,637.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many Department of National Defence ships are presently mothballed or otherwise not in use?
2.	What is the yearly cost of storage and maintenance of such ships?
3.	What amount of other military equipment is presently in storage or otherwise not being used?
4.	What is the yearly cost of storing this equipment?
5.	(a) How many Department destroyers are scheduled to be mothballed or put into storage (b) what is the projected initial mothballing cost (c) what is the projected yearly cost of storage and maintenance?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Three. Two in storage, one is in the final stage of equipment removal prior to disposal.
June 20, 1975

Order Paper Questions
2. Approximately $44,000	for the two destroyers in				1972	1973	1974
storage.				exporter and overdue reports)			
3. The following military	equipment	is presently in		was	245	255	203
operational reserve or awaiting disposal:							
				(b) the aggregate amount claimed			
Operational	Awaiting	(excluding claims withdrawn	Reserve	Disposal	Total	by exporter and overdue	Centurion Tanks	153	_	153	reports) was	$3,193,859	$4,801,222	$2,167,128Ml 13 Armoured Personnel Carriers	60	60	Lynx Reconnaissance Vehicles	7	7	(e) the number of claims paid	M109 Tracked Vehicles	14	11	(including payments to banks	Tutor Aircraft	66	66	under guarantees) was	166	203	159CF5 Aircraft	29	-	29	Helicopters	15	-	15	(d) the aggregate amount paid	T33 Aircraft	25	24	49	(see Note) was	$2,209,081	$5,613,255	$2,101,933Tracker Aircraft	14	9	23	Dakota Aircraft	3	21	24	(e) the number of claims	4. Most of the above equipment is in outside enclosures	payments in various amounts were (i) under $500	35	31	18and incurs minimal storage costs. The cost of researching	(ii) $501 to $999	26	17	14the exact amount would be prohibitive.	(iii) $1,000 to $1,999	17	16	235. (a) None, (b) not applicable, (c) not applicable.	(iv) $2,000 to $4,999	26	18	23(v) $5,000 to $9,999	23	31	28(vi) $10,000 to $24,999	18	48	41UIC-NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS OF	(vii) $25,000 to $99,959	17	25	15PARLIAMENT IN 1973 AND 1974	(viii) over $100,000	4	17	2
Question No. 2,094-Mr. Fortin: For the years 1973, 1974 and for the period September 1974 to February 1975, for each regional or district office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Quebec (a) how many requests for information, complaints, etc., were made by Members of Parliament (b) how many from each Member?	(f) the number of employees (including stenographic and clerical support and trainees) involved with claims and recoveries (average)


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Communications between UIC and Members of Parliament in the Quebec Region: (a) 1973, 17,315; 1974, 9,295; September, 1974 to February, 1975, 8,083; (b) It has not been the policy of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to divulge communications between Members of Parliament and the Commission.
Note; Under the terms and conditions of a Policy of insurance, a claim may not be eligible for payment during the year in which it is submitted. The excess of claims paid over the amount submitted for 1973 is attributable to a carry-forward of claims submitted in 1972.


Mr. Stevens: In each year 1972, 1973 and 1974 (a) what were the number of insurance claims submitted to the Export Development Corporation (b) what was the aggregate amount claimed (c) how many claims were paid (d) what was the aggregate amount paid (e) how many payments were under (i) $500 (ii) $1,000 (iii) $2,000 (iv) $5,000 (v) $10,000 (vi) $25,000 (vii) $100,000 (f) what was the number of employees in the claims department?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Export Development Corporation states that: In each of the years 1972, 1973 and 1974:
1972	1973	1974
(a) the number of documented insurance claims submitted to it (excluding claims subsequently withdrawn by


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	On what date was Air Canada (a) Quebec-New York flight (b) Calgary-San Francisco flight inaugurated?
2.	In each case, what date was the promotional press flight and what was the cost to the airline?
3.	From the date of inauguration to the present, what was the percentage of occupancy on the (a) Quebec-New York flight (b) Calgary-San Francisco flight?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) December 1, 1974; (b) December 1, 1974.
2.	There were no promotional press flights, as such. However, the officially designated "inaugural" flights, which included some members of the press were as follows: Quebec-New York, January 21, 1975. Cost $4,776, (Edmonton)-Calgary-San Francisco, February 2, 1975. Cost $8,693.96.
29576-27V1

June 20, 1975
Order Paper Questions
3.	(a) Between December 1, 1974 and April 30, 1975, 22 percent, (b) Between December 1, 1974 and April 30, 1975, 56 percent.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Has Air Canada taken delivery of a B747 with aircraft registration number ending in "306" and, if so, on what date was the aircraft received from the manufacturer?
2.	On what date was the order for the aircraft placed and what was the total cost to Air Canada?
3.	What are the special design provisions in the aircraft with regard to its capacity to handle freight cargo?
4.	What was the difference in cost between the B747 configuration designed primarily for passenger service and this particular aircraft?
5.	What vice-president of Air Canada made the final arrangements with the manufacturer and signed the contracts which first set the manufacturer to work on producing the aircraft?
6.	What vice-president in Air Canada management structure has the final authority, below the chairman and chief executive officer, for freight operations in Air Canada?
7.	Who was the vice-president at the time the B747 with unique freight-handling capacity was ordered?
8.	Has Air Canada a process or a system for evaluation of all proposals to purchase aircraft and, if so (a) does the arrangement give the evaluation group the responsibilities for the design of aircraft purchases proposed and for the final recommendation to the executive of Air Canada for the description and the requirements of the purchase (b) was this process followed completely in the ordering of the B747?
9.	Since delivery to Air Canada and from the time of availability for operation, how many days has it actually been employed, since May 1, 1975?
10.	Were any special arrapgements made with the manufacturer with regard to the aircraft after delivery was taken by Air Canada and, if so (a) what were they (b) what effect, if any, did such arrangements have with regard to cost of the aircraft or remuneration for Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Air Canada took delivery of a B747 aircraft, registration number 306 on March 7, 1975.
2.	The order was executed on January 22, 1974 at a total cost of approximately $29.5 million.
3.	A main deck side cargo door measuring 120 inches by 134 inches, a heavier structure and convertibility of the aft cabin area so that the aircraft may be utilised not only in its delivered all-passenger configuration but also in two combination passenger/cargo models of 250 passengers and six cargo pallets or 180 passengers and 12 cargo pallets.
4.	Approximately $1.7 million.
5.	President R. T. Vaughan had the responsibility for making final arrangements with the manufacturer and he executed the contract.
6.	Group Vice President, Sales and Services.
7.	Mr. M. d'Amours.
8.	Yes. (a) Yes. (b) Yes.
9.	Up to the period ending May 23, a total of 20 days.
10.	No.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How many students obtained summer employment in 1975 in the various departments?
2.	(a) Are the students paid (i) by the hour (ii) by the week (iii) by the month (b) in each case, what is the rate?
3.	Will students paid by the hour lose the birthday of the Sovereign, St. John the Baptist Day and Dominion Day holidays and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: This reply covers solely the Career-Oriented Summer Employment Program, which is the responsibility of the Public Service Commission. As some positions are still coming in and others have not been filled, the regional offices of the Public Service Commission are still completing their statistics: 1. To date some 1,900 Career-Oriented Summer positions have been filled by students from postsecondary institutions.
2. The students are paid by the hour, according to Treasury Board Minute No. 733259 which sets out the 1975 Rates for Students and Graduates Assistants hired under the Career-Oriented Summer Employment Program. A student is paid the rate which is in accordance with the number of academic years successfully completed from University Qualifying or Technological 1 up to University 8. The rates are the following:
University
Technological Rate/Hour
Qualifying year 1

5
7
1	$2,75
2	3.20
3	3.65
	4.10
	4.55
	5.00
	5.45
	5.90
	6.35
3. Salary is less compensation for statutory holidays in the first 30 calendar days of the student's employment. In other words, those students whose employment period began at the end of April were not paid for the May 19 holiday but will be paid the Dominion Day holiday. Those students who work in the Province of Quebec and were employed before the 29 of May will be paid the St. Jean Baptiste Day holiday which is not observed in the other provinces. Statistics on the regular summer student program, coordinated by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, are not expected to be available until the end of the summer.
June 20, 1975



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. C. M. Drury (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-63, to amend the Olympic (1976) Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is almost two years since this House was asked to give its approval to the Olympic (1976) Act. The proposed legislation which is before parliament today is intended to provide the necessary authority for the introduction of additional programs which will assist the Olympic organizing committee in the financing of the Olympic Games which are now but 13 months away. I believe it would be helpful for all hon. members if, in introducing this legislation, I were first to review the major considerations which were the subject of public attention when the Olympic (1976) Act was before the House. I will state them briefly and then come back to each one in greater detail.
The first point to recall is that at the time of enactment of enabling federal legislation which would permit the operation of three revenue-generating programs, assurances were received that the federal government would not be asked for any direct financial contribution to the 1976 summer Olympic Games. Hon. members will recall that these assurances were received from the government of Quebec, the city of Montreal and the Olympic organizing committee and were tabled in this House on February 2, 1973. The revenue-generating programs which were included in the Olympic (1976) Act are the Olympic coin program, the Olympic stamp program and the Olympic lottery. The legislation also provided that the Olympic Corporation for taxation purposes would be deemed to be a registered Canadian amateur athletic association, so that donations by individuals and corporations could be deducted from taxable income.
The second major point, as stressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his statement of February 2, 1973, is that although the federal government would not be granting funds directly to the Olympic Corporation, federal involvement in the 1976 Olympics would go beyond the provision of enabling legislation: this support would be provided through the medium of regular programs operated by various federal departments and agencies. It was realized at that time that additional funds would be necessary, particularly for broadcasting and security requirements.

Mr. Speaker, as an introduction to the debate on the legislation before us, I would like to review the provisions of the first Olympic act, and discuss the developments that have taken place since its adoption.
The Olympic (1976) Act provided for the sale of $5 and $10 coins and for the issuing of stamps and related postal goods commemorating the Olympic Games. It also authorized the creation of a national Olympic lottery. The olym-
Olympic Financing
pic coin program became mammoth undertaking, by far the most audacious of the kind ever entered upon. Within a few months, Canadian Olympic coins were put on the market in fifty-five countries. However, there has been a softening demand for such coins as a result of world wide recessionary trends, the uncertain climate regarding money prices, and the somewhat cloudy future of the games being held in Montreal following the much publicized strikes and delays that took place. On the basis of past experience, officials responsible for the Olympic coin program now predict net receipts of at least $100 million, which will greatly help towards the financing of the games. Now if we consider the Olympic stamp program, we note that the sale of these stamps, which bear a surcharge destined for COJO, has recently received greater support from the public. This may be a sign of renewed interest shown by Canadians in the 1976 summer Olympic Games. We remain optimistic about the possibility of obtaining $10 million from this program. As you know, the success of the Olympic Lottery has gone beyond all expectations. COJO now expects net receipts from this program to exceed $200 million.

Mr. Speaker, considered together, it is expected that the programs which were authorized by parliament through passage of the Olympic (1976) Act should realize net revenues of approximately $350 million. These estimates would not only meet but would exceed by some $50 million what was originally planned to be generated by these programs. As hon. members will recall, the 1976 Olympic Games were planned to be self-financing. It is now apparent that the increase in expenditures will exceed the increase in planned revenues. The federal government is seeking parliament's approval of legislation that will establish further programs designed to provide additional revenues for the Olympic organizing committee. [Translation]
The legislative measure we are considering today involves two elements: first, the issue of $100 gold coins bearing the date 1976 and commemorating the Olympic Games; second, granting the Olympic Games Organization Committee proprietary rights in trade marks and copyrights.
According to COJO and the city of Montreal, the production and sale of a $100 gold coin constitute basically a complementary program to the existing one concerning silver coins. The potentialities of the gold coins program have been under consideration by experts who reached the conclusion that numismatists and collectors-in Canada as well as in other countries of the world-would be deeply interested in them. According to these experts, the factors that justify the purchase of a gold coin vary basically from those that justify the purchase of a silver coin. They feel that the sale of gold coins for the Olympic Games will not reduce the sale of silver coins. The Olympic Games Organization Committee which has requested the establishment of this program, is convinced that such a program will serve as a valuable contribution to the games financing. As for the silver coins, all costs related to production, marketing, and distribution will be deducted from the sale amounts and the net proceeds will be paid to COJO.

June 20, 1975
Olympic Financing
Mr. Speaker, the clause of the bill concerning trade marks and copyrights aims at providing COJO with the protection which is necessary to carry out its licencegranting program. The advertising value of such an important event as the Olympics makes it advisable to associate a wide range of products and services with this event. This is why this program is likely to be an important source of extra revenues for COJO. Essentially, the clause of the bill dealing with trade marks and copyrights provides COJO with a protection similar to the one EXPO 67 enjoyed. [English]
I have spoken of how the federal government has been, and is, ready to support the Olympics by introducing the necessary enabling legislation for the revenue-generating programs of the Olympic organizing committee. However, Mr. Speaker, the support of the federal government goes beyond this. In fact, the support provided to the 1976 Olympic Games by the federal government through normal programs involves some 30 departments and agencies and is expected to amount to approximately $130 million. I would like to review briefly, for the benefit of hon. members, the highlights of this support.
The federal government, through the Department of National Health and Welfare, has increased the amount of assistance that has been available to Canadian athletes either through grants to national sports governing bodies or via the student scholarship program. The level of this support now stands at close to $2 million for this year.


Mr. Jelinek:: Why are they undernourished?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In addition to providing assistance to our athletes, Canada as host country is also responsible for ensuring an adequate supply of competent officials and judges. Thus, funds are also being made available for the training of qualified Canadian officials of international calibre. In addition, Canada Manpower centres have made special arrangements to find the literally thousands of workers that are already needed or will be needed in the months to come. This support, plus the provision of other hiring and registration services, will cost the department an estimated $1.6 million.
Furthermore, under the auspices of the Department of the Environment, and through the Department of Public Works, work has been undertaken at Kingston, Ontario, to provide a breakwater and to deepen the harbour that will be used for the Olympic sailing events. This work, costing approximately $800,000, is virtually completed and the sailing facilities will be used for a major international regatta this summer. In addition, consultations have been carried out and advice has been provided by the Department of Transport on the applicable marine regulations and safety requirements. Complete weather information will be provided by the Department of the Environment for all Olympic activities.
Planning is continuing by the RCMP, provincial and municipal police forces and the Department of National Defence of security arrangements for the Olympics. The assignment and sharing of tasks under the security plan is the result of close consultations between the federal government and the provincial and municipal governments.

The total cost of federal government support for security will be $90 million, of which approximately $45 million will be provided through supplementary funds. This will involve approximately 10,000 men primarily from the RCMP and the Department of National Defence. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, traditionally Olympic Games have been more than a simple athletic competition. They are a very original way of gathering thousands of young people and spectators from all nations in the world who come to share their experiences and make known their national customs and culture. Simultaneously with the Olympics will be held a cultural festival which will illustrate for the many visitors who will be in Canada the authenticity of our own national personality. Therefore, cabinet has approved a $1 million grant to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) to allow for travel and accommodation expenses of all Canadian artists who will participate in that festival.
You will recall that the federal government will spend $25 million as supplementary funds for the CBC which will be the host broadcaster during the Olympics. Broadcasting all Olympic events will cost about $56 million. The difference will be paid by COJO and foreign broadcasters.
At the request of COJO, the National Film Board will produce the official film of the 1976 Olympic Games. The NFB will spend $300,000 out of its budget for that purpose. Eventually, the NFB will use that material for social, cultural and educational purposes.

Mr. Speaker, it is evident from the highlights I have cited that there is a broad range of federal activity in support of the 1976 Olympics. The magnitude and scope of these activities represents a significant measure of support for the games. In addition to the federal support that I have just outlined, and in addition to the programs which have already been made possible by parliament, we are seeking the approval of the House today for further revenue-generating programs. I would like to take this opportunity to announce that the government is considering similar proposals to support the 1978 Commonwealth Games which will be held in Edmonton.
Barely a year from today, Mr. Speaker, the attention of the people of Canada and, indeed, of the world will be focused on the Olympic Games. We will be cheering our athletes on to what will undoubtedly be our most successful venture ever into international competition of this calibre. It will be a time to be proud of our athletes, their trainers, coaches and managers and of the effort and sacrifice that their successes will require. Today I call on the members of this House and on all the people of Canada to support this legislation.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) made the statement on the Olympics because it was he, when he was president of the Treasury Board, who assured this House two years ago that no further legislation would be introduced for the purpose of aiding the 1976 Olympics. It is ironic how things change on the other side.
Allow me to begin, Madam Speaker, by reiterating this party's support for the 1976 Olympics in Montreal and
June 20, 1975

Kingston. We believe now, as we did when the original financing bill was passed, that there is a great opportunity for Canada and Canadians to benefit in hosting this prestigious international event. Although they will be held in Montreal, we all realize that the Olympics belong to-Canada. They can reflect Canada to the world and bring to Canada a sense of pride and unity.
While I admit our complete support of the Olympics and the benefits that will accrue to Canada and Canadians through world advertising, tourism, youth participation and bringing together the many countries in unity, at the same time I do not hesitate to point out that I intend to remain the watchdog for the taxpayers of this country and I shall be the first to criticize any questionable expenditures as a result of federal funding. It is with this in mind that I view the opportunity to speak on behalf of our party with mixed feelings. I, naturally, wish the Olympic committee every success in its endeavours to bring to the Olympics the unique principle of self-financing. Like many Canadians, however, I am deeply concerned about the too common eleventh-hour approach to the growing problem of Olympic financing and the shroud of secrecy that continues to surround this whole affair. In this respect I refer not only to COJO in Montreal but to the federal government in whose hands the final responsibility rests whether we like it or not.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has constantly stated that the Olympic Games are not the responsibility of the federal government and that the financing of the Olympics is not the responsibility of the federal government. Indeed, the Prime Minister did not consider any part of the Olympic program to be the responsibility of the government. But how can you take these statements seriously? Consider these facts: the Prime Minister accepted responsibility, on behalf of Canada, back in 1969, as shown by the letter written to the International Olympic Committee which has been made public. No less than six federal departments are involved in some way in helping with costs. The federal government introduced the original Olympic financing bill, Bill C-169, under which help was made available to COJO. As well, it is well known, as the minister just suggested, that the government has helped the games and will continue to help them with grants made for items such as security, immigration, health, CBC coverage-I understand the CBC will be the host broadcaster-CMHC construction and many other items. These grants will total well over $100 million.
The help the government has given the games does not bother me; I do not think it bothers anyone. What really bothers me is the government's deception, its misrepresentation, its statements such as that the federal government will not assume responsibility for the games. The Prime Minister said on June 28, 1973, that there will be no special assistance, no special financial aid from the federal government to Montreal or to COJO for the holding of the Olympic Games; it is not the federal government's responsibility. He has said that repeatedly. But he wrote the letter of acceptance on behalf of Canada, and now half the cabinet is involved in helping the Olympic cause.
That is not what bothers us. What troubles us is the way this government has behaved. It says that it is keeping its
Olympic Financing
hands off the Olympics. That is, or was, the official policy. It has been secretive and refused to give information. It has not told members of parliament who have raised questions in the question period, or the media, where it stands and where Montreal stands. At least, it has not done this officially. Any help which has been given has been given in secrecy right from the beginning. As I say, this air of total secrecy which has surrounded the entire Olympic matter has been raised many times in this House, in editorial comments and by the media in all parts of this country. As the time available for Olympic fund raising is fast drawing to a close, the government should come clean with the Canadian people.
Most of us realize that Olympic coin sales have not met expectations. They are lower than we expected them to be only one year ago. Actually, less than $25 million has been realized from coin sales, or less than 10 per cent of projected revenue. Therefore, I was amazed to hear the Minister of Public Works say that the program was a success.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I did not say that.


Otto John Jelinek: How can he suggest it is a success? Two years ago he assured us, in this House and in committee, that the coin program will realize $250 million. Less than one year remains before the Olympic Games are to begin and coin sales remain disappointing. Only 10 per cent of projected sales have been realized. It is worth considering: that if the silver bullion which is being used for the minting of Olympic silver coins had been sold in bulk after the rapid increase in silver prices, we could have realized some $200 million in profit and turned the money over to the Olympic committee. This would have avoided the frustration and costs of the coin program, a program which has been little but an exercise in frustration for the last two years.
It is time to examine this dismal failure which has resulted partly from inflationary trends, labour strife, the unexpected rise in silver prices and from other troubles in our economy. Part of the trouble stems from factors which have led the economy to perform less well than the government said it would perform. Also, the coin program's sad showing results from the government's lateness in bringing before parliament the original financing bill. We asked the government to introduce the bill. We did not know what its contents would be; we only knew that a bill would be introduced and repeatedly asked the government to bring it forward. But the government kept delaying its introduction until it was obviously too late to do much good.
The coin program also failed because it was handled ineptly by the Post Office. I have nothing but sympathy for the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) who inherited responsibility for the coin program from his predecessor. Incidentally, I am happy to see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) sitting in his seat. As I say, I sympathize with the Postmaster General who inherited this fiasco-a fiasco which is only equalled by that of the Department of Transport. The Postmaster General is given ultimate responsibility for the Olympic coin and stamp program.
Of course, I should refer not only to the deficiencies of the Olympic coin and stamp program but to the over-all
June 20, 1975

Olympic Financing
inefficiencies within the Post Office which are partly the cause of the large deficits now being incurred by COJO. No wonder the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is being plagued with problems to do with tainted meat. I sympathize with the Postmaster General; it is too bad that he had to inherit a department which was in such a sad condition. I also sympathize with Montreal and the province of Quebec as the city and province will be responsible for an ultimate deficit of some half a billion dollars when the two-week Olympic event is over. Let me add this is not my personal opinion. Montreal and Quebec have the present Liberal administration to thank for the deficit. They have the Liberal administration to thank for what happened with regard to the financing bill and for all the troubles which have beset the Olympics from day one.
Having said this, let me return to what happened some two years ago after the original financing bill was passed by parliament. It was passed only after needed and important amendments had been introduced by my party. As you will recall, the Canadian people were assured by the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet, the mayor of Montreal and COJO that parliament would not be asked again for further support or assistance by way of new legislation or funds. Of course, the good mayor of Montreal has a reputation for making pertinent and unforgettable statements. Perhaps his most famous comment was that the Olympics are no more likely to have a deficit than a man is likely to have a baby. I understand that the mayor has been in the presence of Dr. Morgentaler in the last few weeks!
In all seriousness, I commend the brilliant achievement of the mayor of Montreal. He obtained for Montreal and Canada the Olympic Games in the teeth of strong opposition from countries such as the United States and the Soviet Union. This deed is worthy of the mayor and we ought to give him credit for bringing the Olympics to Canada. It is sad that because this government has failed to act, or has acted in secrecy, the Olympics are now in financial trouble.
Be that as it may, although the government assured all parties in the House that we should not be asked to consider new legislation, we are considering, in this eleventh-hour crisis, Bill C-63. I suggest, at the same time, that but for the inability of the Mint to strike all Canadian coinage with an Olympic symbol-I am referring to nickels, dimes, quarters, and so on-we would have before us a much more comprehensive bill asking us to grant the Olympic committee a partial seigniorage on this coinage; but that is not possible.
This bill, at first glance, seems to be simple and harmless. It seems to deal with nothing more than gold pieces, the registration and copyright of symbols, and trade marks. But it is vague; it says little about the specific issues we are interested in and many between-the-line questions will need to be answered before my party will be willing to agree to passage of the bill.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Filibuster!


Otto John Jelinek: For example, we do not know the percentage of the gold to be used in these coins, the number of coins that are to be minted, or the timetable for minting and distributing them. We do know that the Mint is presently behind schedule in the minting of the silver coin series. In fact, we wonder whether the gold coins will be minted and sold prior to the games. If not, will there be a market for these coins after the games are over? Indeed, is there a market for them now?
We were told there was a market for $450 million worth of silver coins. We questioned the government on that matter. I do not want to be in the position of saying "we told you so", but we persistently questioned the minister on this matter and he assured us there was a market. Are we to believe there is a market for the gold coins, or is it to be put into the same category as the silver coins and end up at the end of the year with 10 per cent of the total projected sales?
I believe the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) received instructions some time ago-in fact, before this bill was even presented-to purchase for the Mint special equipment for the sole purpose of minting gold coins. We do not know anything of the sale projections. Most important, there is no real definition as to the price of the gold that will be used in these coins. The bill simply reads, and I quote from clause 3:
11.1 With respect to any gold held by or on behalf of the Minister of Finance for the exchange fund account that is used in the production of gold Olympic coins, the Minister of Finance shall, for the purposes of this act and the Currency and Exchange Act, determine the selling price of that gold on the basis of the market price of the gold when the selling price is determined.
When will the selling price be determined? What will be the date? When will the delivery of the gold be made to the Mint? What is the precise definition of "market price" as it reads in the bill? Is this to be assumed as a free market price, or will the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) determine a figure between the book value, which I believe is $42, and the free market value which is some $160? These are very important questions.
We realize that we must move quickly with the passage of this bill. It is already too late. However, the answers to these questions are not in the bill. We cannot just sit here, close our eyes and open the door to any suggestion by the government to suddenly, at the eleventh hour, bail out COJO. We want COJO to succeed and we want the Olympics to succeed. However, as an opposition we have a responsibility to ensure that these bills are passed properly and that these very pertinent questions are answered. There are many more questions. I will not dwell on them at this time because this bill will be moving into committee stage. I know that some of my colleagues will be speaking on it this afternoon.
In his statement, the minister had the audacity to mention aid to athletes in the Olympic Games. That is a complete joke. The minister well knows, as do the members of this House, that the majority of our athletes are going into debt as a result of training for the Olympic Games. Many of them are undernourished. They cannot
June 20, 1975

afford the proper dietary foods, pills and medication which they require. In comparison with the training of athletes in other countries, they are far behind. Once every four years Canadians ask what is happening to our athletes and why they are not making a good showing. They ask what must be done. They are then quiet for another four years until the next Olympic Games come along.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) is going to give them three months leave of absence to train.


Otto John Jelinek: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) says that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) will give them three months leave of absence in order to train. I suggest that is a result of the fact that the media drew attention to this. I am glad the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has raised the point at this time. For the past year or two Treasury Board has been recommending to private industry that athletes training for the Olympic Games be given leave of absence with pay. However, one or two months ago Treasury Board sent out a typewritten, official document stating that the policy of Treasury Board was not to give leave of absence with pay to anyone working for the federal government. It came out in the media that this is a contradictory situation. We were all very happy with the statement that Treasury Board would be kind enough to give three months off to these people who are more than athletes when it comes to international competition; they are roving ambassadors for Canada; they spread more goodwill for this country than a lot of politicians.
Why does this bill, for example, contain a comprehensive outline of the registration of trade marks, symbols and proprietary rights? The minister dwelt on this matter; he stated it was very important for COJO to have these trade marks registered and copyrighted. I do not understand why it has to be in a federal bill. Every industry, business and corporation registers their trade marks under the Trade Marks Act; they register and have copyright of their trade marks, symbols, and so on. Perhaps when we get to committee it will be explained why this part of the bill is even before the House.
What will be the accounting process to parliament on this bill and, indeed, on the over-all financing of the games, particularly when funds are derived as a direct result of federal participation? I repeat, the time has come for this government to come clean with the people of Canada. Because the majority of the funds for the Olympics are in fact derived by way of federal participation, the government must be accountable for how and where the moneys go that are derived as a result of federal assistance.
The CBC, as host broadcaster, has a budget of over $50 million to be used for facilities that will become obsolete on the closing day of the Olympics. I have not just picked this out of the air; it is on record. The president of the CBC said that there are no plans for the facilities being built specifically for the televising of the Olympics in Montreal. If they could be utilized after the games, that would be fine. However, this will be a white elephant in the middle of Montreal. As it now stands, $25 million of
Olympic Financing
this budget is a direct federal grant. I suggest that this figure will increase.

When touching on the subject of the CBC I would be remiss if I did not bring up once again the name of Marvin Josephson of International Famous Agency of New York city, hired by COJO for $375,000 plus to obtain television rights after-I emphasize the word "after"-the $25 million agreement had been completed with the American Broadcasting Corporation. He did nothing then and has done nothing since, and it would be a sad precedent if the Olympic Games from Canada were, for the first time, not to be carried in Europe over the European television network. As it now stands, even with this crackpot agent from New York, COJO and the European television network are far apart. It seems to me they will not reach the $25 million figure they were asking; the network is offering somewhere between $5 million and $10 million. This is just one typical example of the unbelievable waste of money which takes place on a regular basis.
We see the Montreal city council authorizing the construction of Olympic facilities, using moneys obtained from federally-sponsored programs, without offering contracts for public tender. Yet we sit idly by. The time is long overdue for the federal government to demand accurate accounting with respect to the over-all financial administration of the Olympics, particularly as such matters relate to the Olympic financing legislation passed by parliament. As a nation which has committed itself to the Olympics in Montreal, we cannot go on passing legislation freely without even a budget setting out the use of the funds derived from such legislation.
The answer we get from COJO is that a budget will not be available until the books are closed. This is not good enough, not if we are to continue to open our legislative doors in support of Montreal. The least we should ask for is an accounting showing where federal moneys go and how they are spent. I am not suggesting we become involved in the administrative processes of COJO and the Olympic committee, but we should certainly have an accounting as to what is happening to the money which comes directly from the government, regardless of what the cabinet says. The air of secrecy which has surrounded the entire Olympics program since its inception, including the arrangements for the letting of the television contracts and the practice of closed bidding on other contracts, must be dispelled and the indifferent attitude of the Prime Minister must be changed so that Canadians may be able to lend their complete support to the 1976 Olympics. Only then will they see clearly the many benefits which will accrue not only to our youth but to our entire country.
Thousands of athletes from virtually every country in the world have spent months, and indeed years in preparation for this event; thousands of Canadians have been making the same preparations, and all are looking forward to becoming a part of the spirit of the games. In accepting the application for the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, the Prime Minister accepted for all of Canada. Yet his hands-off policy has done little to ensure national confidence in this event, and without further assistance financial disaster is obviously apparent. His band-aid, patchwork approach to our national problems is again exemplified in
6966

June 20, 1975
Olympic Financing
his approach to the inevitable in the Olympic financing bill. All cost-saving recommendations of the past, such as the very practical suggestion of decentralization, have been ignored. As early as January 16, 1973, I stated in this House:
I believe that Montreal is the city best able to cope with the multitude of problems that would be faced when staging the games in Canada. However, because of the costs and added possible benefits to our country, we should consider partially decentralizing the games somewhat along the lines of the Munich Olympics which in fact took place in as many as seven different cities, one as far away as 550 miles from Munich.
Such a concept, if adopted, would have utilized existing facilities, spread the Olympics across Canada and made them available to thousands more Canadians. In addition, it would have reduced over-all costs considerably. If the House is to approve further funding, the time has come when we should be given authority to examine the Montreal Olympic program and make recommendations as to cost-saving methods before it is altogether too late. Had the government listened to my suggestion as to the decentralization of the games and advised Montreal that, while the heart of the Olympics should be kept in that city, other events should be held in centres around the country where facilities already exist, we would not find ourselves in the financial difficulty which is now apparent.
To those critics who tell us this is not in accordance with the rules of the International Olympic Committee, let me say that when the president of the IOC, Lord Killanin, was here in Canada some six weeks ago I had the opportunity to spend some time with him; he was aware of our suggestions with regard to decentralization and, as a matter of fact, he told me it was his hope that in future Olympiads the concept of decentralization would be followed because, as we all know, the Olympics have become far too large and costly for any single city. Unfortunately, of course, there is unlikely to be decentralization at the next Olympics because they will be held in Moscow, and Moscow, as part of a propaganda effort, will stage the games in the city alone and they will probably be the biggest and most costly ever held. But they will be paid for by the government.
It is regrettable that the government has chosen to ignore all such suggestions in the past, because it now finds itself in the position which can only be described as desperate. The new plan outlined in Bill C-63 certainly has merit and will provide new resources for COJO, but I can assure the minister that while I am as anxious as he is to ensure financial success for the 1976 Olympics, I am equally anxious to scrutinize carefully the expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars-and these are taxpayers' dollars, whatever the hon. gentleman says-as well as moneys derived from federal bills such as the one before us.
Before coming to an end, Madam Speaker, and realizing that we are to be blessed in this debate with words of wisdom from the New Democratic Party, I should like to go back briefly to February 2, 1973, when the NDP spokesman on Olympic matters stated, and I quote from page 899 of Hansard for that date:
My party approves the concept of the issuing of special coins and stamps. We wish our first Olympic Games every possible success as a potential great moment in the history of our nation.

That was back in 1973. We all know they went on to oppose everything and anything regarding the Olympics from then on. I look forward to hearing a renewed stand on Bill C-63 today.
Having said all this-and I might note that several of my colleagues will be adding further comments concerning outstanding questions which arise from this bill-I would assure the House that it is our intention to vote for this bill at second reading and pass it on to the committee stage. However, I must make it abundantly clear that unless we receive a clear explanation regarding the many unanswered questions and discrepancies surrounding not only this bill but the over-all financing of the games-and they go hand in hand-unless an up to date budget is made available, and unless we have an opportunity to question several key witnesses in committee, such as the director of the coin program who I was happy to see has received a substantial raise in salary even though the program has only reached 10 per cent of the projected amount, the master of the Mint and others to explain the confusion and secrecy that has surrounded this affair from the outset-in order words, unless a complete accord accounting is made available, which I believe is only fair-we will have no alternative but to reserve our right to vote differently when the bill comes before the House for third and final reading.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) in his remarks on the bill said something that struck me as rather significant: he said that in 1976 the eyes of the world will be upon Canada. If I may just deal with those words, I suggest that the eyes of Canada are presently upon Canada. As a matter of fact, if he wants to get international about it, the eyes of OECD countries are upon Canada, as evidenced by their latest remarks on Canada's economic performance which is not one that would warm the cockles of the minister's heart.
The eyes of Canada are upon Canada, and this is what really concerns me. Here we are, in this country, facing a very serious housing problem. During the last federal election I recall that when our party advocated a policy of 6 per cent mortgages, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cohorts ran around saying that that was much too rich for the people of Canada, that we could not afford it. "Where would we get money for 6 per cent mortgages?" he asked.
This Olympic thing has become a monster; it has grown out of all proportion. I remember as a child being told never to put your hat higher than you can reach it. This government has gone along with the mayor of Montreal and his grandiose ideas about how he is going to enhance Canada's image in the world by putting on one of the most spectacular performances in terms of the Olympic Games, but it smacks to me of putting one's hat higher than one can reach it economically.
It is obvious to all that we have serious priorities in this country. We have to build more houses and clean up the rivers into which we dump untreated sewage. I suggest it will be quite a scene to hold the Olympics in Montreal and to have flowing past the Olympic village in the St. Law-
June 20,1975

rence River the untreated sewage of the city. There is an unemployment rate in some parts of Quebec of 20 per cent. There is heavy unemployment in the maritimes. My colleague for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) has been harping constantly in this House since he has been here about some attention being paid to the unemployment problems of that underdeveloped and depressed area. He has pleaded with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) and the government to do something to solve those problem. Yet we are going to put on a great big spectacular, a grand circus for people who are facing very serious problems. We are going to divert their attention with a great big rah-rah-rah. We are going to tell them that even their children can become Olympic athletes. The way the tickets are selling, it is the officials and politicians who are going to get first call on the prime seats to view the Olympics.
I do not know where the priorities of this government are. I think they are sitting on their priorities. They do not even know what the Olympics in Montreal are going to cost. The Olympic committee has stated that they are going to stop publicizing the deficits because they are piling up so quickly and furiously that they cannot even keep track of them. What is it in a nation with an ego that is so big that it makes us try and outdo any other country in this kind of spectacular, at a time when we have very serious problems that need attention and the expenditure of money? I realize the federal government has stated that it is not going to finance the games beyond the provision of stamps and coins, but may I also suggest that the people of Canada are paying a very regressive kind of tax in buying lottery tickets. This kind of chance is a most regressive form of taxation and they will have to pay for it.
Over 250,000 people are going to visit the city of Montreal every day for two weeks, a city with many urban problems and transportation congestion. Oftentimes members of the House criticize the rate of violence in Montreal; it is well known and publicized every day in the newspapers. Indeed, there are criminal elements in every city. But can you imagine, Madam Speaker, 250,000 people coming together every day for two weeks and not aggravating that kind of violence? It is bad enough having General Quang there, without having an additional 250,000 visitors a day.
I know the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) is a pretty good skater, but he skated all over this issue. He could make any international skating team. He wants to have it both ways. He sucks and blows. He votes for the Olympics and then turns around and criticizes them. I submit that the present concept of the Olympics is wrong.
I see it is one o'clock, Madam Speaker, so may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: 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.
Olympic Financing
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Where is the rest of your party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: This just goes to show the common need for the NDP. There is one NDP and 25 Liberals, and that's a good ratio.


An hon. Member:: It's the standard ratio for Friday afternoon.


John R. Rodriguez: Before we recessed for lunch I had mentioned the fact that when we first set up this measure for the Olympics we fell into the grandiose idea put forward by the mayor of Montreal. It seems that we have the money, as Canadians, to get into a project which is escalating beyond our wildest dreams, but we have a very serious housing problem in this country and when we try to deal with that problem we are told we do not have the money. Transportation in this country, in the Minister of Transport's own words, is in a mess, yet we do not have the funds required to straighten out this mess. We do not have money for housing or for transportation, but we have all kinds of money for this project.
I was up in the Yukon a couple of weeks ago and spent some time looking at conditions there. I must say that housing for the Indian people in the Yukon is absolutely criminal and shameful. The piddling amounts of money spent on housing for native people in this country ought to make any self-respecting Canadian cry with shame. The condition of deprivation and unhappiness that faces the native people in this country is something we can never be proud to have the eyes of the world look upon; yet the eyes of the world are upon us, and the eyes of Canada also, because of the hosting of the international games. We ought to hide our heads in shame or bury them in the sand when we think of these conditions. Yet when we get involved in this spectacular we want to put on a great big show for the world; we want to show that we can do it better than Germany and Mexico.
When we are faced with dealing with the basic problems of the Canadian people, we hide behind the facade or the excuse that we cannot find the money. We cannot even find the money for housing and transportation, let alone find the money to buy back the resources of this country: we continue to give them away or sell them for a paltry sum. Yet we cannot find enough money for recreation. Let me refer to the recreation system in the riding of Nickel Belt. We have one swimming pool in the area, serving a community of 250,000 people. Half the lakes and rivers in our area have been polluted by Inco and Falconbridge who are charged with ripping out the resources of the country; yet this federal government, with its responsibility for amateur sport and recreation, cannot find the funds to build facilities for the rural communities in Canada.
This government cannot find the money to fix up the institutions where we keep those who have run afoul of the law. We keep them in buildings which are outmoded. We do not provide proper facilities to ensure the safety of
29576-28)4

June 20, 1975
Olympic Financing
those responsible for looking after the inmates and we certainly do not provide proper housing for the inmates themselves. It seems we cannot spend tax moneys in this way. Some 9,000 athletes will gather in Montreal to participate in the Olympics for a period of two weeks, with some 250,000 visitors per day watching. It is rather interesting to note that in the river flowing right by the Olympic village untreated sewage from the cities is floating by. We cannot deal with our own social problems, yet we are prepared to go full-out on this program.
This project does not seem to me to be one of the things that should be on our list of priorities. As I said earlier, in parts of Quebec, including the Gaspe peninsula, we have unemployment running at close to 20 per cent. That is a shameful situation in this country. My colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, has been after the government constantly since he came here to do something to enable his community to obtain secondary industry. But this government has not been able to move on that. In my area we are completely dependent on Inco and Falconbridge-the mining industry. We have no secondary industry. We do not have suitable land, properly serviced for secondary industry and we do not have the wherewithal to raise the funds.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member is perhaps straying from the subject, which is a bill to amend the Olympic Act.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you very much for reminding me, Madam Speaker. I usually get very carried away when I see waste and an irresponsible set of priorities. When the original bill was before this House to establish authority for issuing Olympic postage stamps, holding lotteries and the like, this party took the position that the priorities were all askew. We now have another bill of a similar type. Hon. friends to my right in the Progressive Conservative Party speak from both sides of their mouths. First of all they agreed there were too many anomalies in the original bill, too many unanswered questions and not a proper accounting system; yet they voted for it. Now we have Bill C-63 which will authorize the minting of Olympic gold coins. This program is supposed to raise something like $50 million, yet the last program involving the minting of silver coins fell far short of the target.
When I think of these Olympic Games and the escalation in terms of costs, I again think we have our priorities all askew. The idea of the Olympics was that people of all countries could compete in athletic events away from the politics that divide countries. When looking at Olympic schemes of today, I have to ask myself whether that idea of the Olympics is still in practice. One only has to look at the situation that surrounded the Munich Olympics to see that this has become a forum for all sorts of radical elements and a place to assassinate people. The whole concept of security is one that ought to concern us greatly, particularly when we realize that the cost of providing security will escalate just as the cost has escalated for the provision of the buildings and other facilities.
Our whole concept is wrong. Surely our concept should be one of providing proper facilities for communities in Canada so that our people can develop in a healthy way. We may well have 250,000 people watching the games and

the rest of the country participating as spectators, thanks to our television networks, the CBC being the prime agency. What we will be doing, once again, is encouraging a few select athletes to participate, with the rest of the country being spectators. Only those who have been chosen in a very contorted may will actually take part in these sports. I am sure government spokesmen will say that young people right across Canada can aspire to participation in the Olympics, but that is a concept of which I cannot conceive. In the track and field events, for example-which I know something about-one needs coaches. Surely no one believes that we are going to go out into northern Ontario and develop all kinds of athletes for the Olympics. I suggest that is a wrong concept.
We should be spending our money on providing recreational facilities in communities across Canada for the use not only of the young people but the middle-aged and the elderly, in order that all citizens can pursue physical fitness. As an example, the funds this government spends on mental health are paltry, yet mental health problems in this country will undoubtedly become even more acute. Many of our school boards do not have the kind of psychological testing services so they can identify children who may have problems at an early age. We will see more and more of the kind of thing that took place in Brampton not long ago. Alcoholism has become a very serious problem in this country, yet the funds spent by the government on alcoholic rehabilitation are paltry indeed. But we can spent millions of dollars on the glorious idea of hosting the Olympics.
One might think that the facilities that are being built for the Olympics will be available to the people of Montreal afterwards so that they can participate in amateur sports there. However, I think they will be there only for the use of professional, not amateur sports. This whole concept of developing anything for amateur sports is disgraceful. Nowhere in this country can people take part in sports for enjoyment and to compete in a friendly way one against another. Now one has to fight for something-a gold medal, a silver medal or a bronze medal: it is a highly competitive situation and the purpose is to win at all costs. Once that concept becomes embedded, there is only one way for us, and that is downward, in the philosophy of the country.
Perhaps that is what the Tories and the Liberals are interested in, to develop a competitive society: may the strong survive, and God help the weak. But that is not this party's concept. We have always been a party which has looked at the social needs and priorities. It is very obvious where the government has placed its priorities. As a matter of fact, I would like to congratulate them, but I cannot even find it in my heart to do so, over the trade mark which part of this bill will implement which shows the outline of a beaver with the Olympic symbol on its heart. It is not even an original idea. Indeed, I might even remark that the beaver shows an uncanny resemblance to the person who conceived the idea of having the Olympics in Montreal. I do not know whether it is accidental or intentional. I cannot even congratulate the government on that aspect of it.
June 20, 1975

For example, one section of the bill states that gold coins will be minted and their face value will be $100. But we do not know what the gold content of the coins will be and hence what the cost of the coin itself is. Again, we are into that whole fuzzy area where the government brings in legislation which is unclear. As the Conservatives have pointed out, in the original bill the accounting system was unclear and the whole cost of the Olympics was up in the air. Yet they were prepared to vote for the original bill and now I suppose they will vote for this bill also. I would not be surprised at all.
This bill does not deserve to be supported. It is based on a concept that is erroneous. Indeed, if the government had courage to do what I suggest it should do, we would all be much better off. What we should be doing is letting some other country which feels it can carry the burden of the Olympics be the host for the games next summer. I do not see why the Canadian taxpayer should be burdened with that cost; and it will be a high cost. When I spoke on this bill on July 27, 1973, I predicted that the deficit would amount to $172 million. Well, that was a very conservative estimate of the loss. I suspect it will now run to $300 million or $400 million.
What are the priorities of this government? It never has money to do the things that ought to be done and to solve the problems of the people of this country. Apparently it has no mortgage money at all. The government is afraid to spend money on mortgages at 6 per cent. But we have money to throw away on the Olympics, which is a show-place and, so far as I am concerned, does not do anything for amateur sport in Canada. It may do a lot for professional sport in this country, but nothing for amateur sport.
My party does not support this bill and when the opportunity arises, if it does arise, we will vote against it because we believe it is based on the wrong concept and the wrong philosophy. When I spoke about the Olympics first, I mentioned the concept on which it should rest-a very relevant concept. I would be prepared to support a bill if it were based on such a philosophy. This bill is based on support for the Olympics in Montreal, but the Olympics are not based on the kind of philosophy I am prepared to accept.
What do we find today? The Olympic Games do not consist of the athletes of one country getting to know those of another country. The games are highly politicized. They do not leave politics off the playing field; they bring politics on to the playing field. If you read the daily reports of the Olympics you find out how many gold medals Russia or the United States have won, and how many points this or that country has won. There is a great deal of rivalry amongst the competing countries. It has many political overtones. You even hear of athletes of one country trying to entice athletes from another country to participate in games to be held in their country.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John R. Rodriguez: It is absolutely shameful. Even in the Olympics itself we have this whole concept of one country not wishing to participate because of the fact, for example, that there are two Chinas. They boycott the Olympics because South Africa or Rhodesia is participating. The Olympics is a very political forum. Then there is the
Olympic Financing
treatment of our own athletes who are supposed to be athletes with potential. We allow some of them to live on unemployment insurance or on welfare so they can train. What does the training consist of? During or after their lunch hour they run around the track. Then it becomes a full-time occupation. We are starting to develop professional track and field athletes.
This philosophy permeates every aspect of the sporting world. It is detrimental to the well-being of this country when we get people who only aim to become hockey players, for instance, because they can make $100,000 or $200,000 a year. It makes of them a group of elitist athletes who achieve the top, while large masses watch them on television or movies or read about them in newspapers. That does not do much for children in Nickel Belt, or any other part of the country, to help them enjoy sports for what sports can do for them to improve them physically or mentally. As I said before, we are prepared, as a party, to reject this bill and we will do so when the opportunity arises.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, I listened with some satisfaction to the Minister's statement when he introduced Bill C-63. In fact, ever since the very outset of that great project of the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal, the people from Quebec particularly have been wondering why the Federal Government acted this way.
Why did it hesitate so much at first to state its position regarding the Montreal Olympic Games? This decision concerning the 1976 Olympics was made at the international level as for Expo '67 and yet we are very surprised to see that the Canadian Government did not take its responsibilities as it did for Expo '67. Everyone is aware that the 1976 Olympic Games will be Canada is Games. I cannot imagine that the authorities thought for one moment that those games were Quebec's or Montreal's games or the COJO's games. They all know that Canada will benefit from them and that the honour of every Canadian is at stake. Why, then, did it let the Quebec Government, the City of Montreal and the COJO shoulder alone the whole responsibility for the Games?
The people of Quebec are anxious to see what will be this government's orientation for the 1978 Commonwealth Games in Manitoba. Were the government to follow the same policy, then there will be nothing left to say; were it to choose the opposite course, then Madam Speaker, beware the reaction! I must say that this government corrected its mistake by presenting the first Olympic Games bill and giving its indirect support through Olympic coins and stamps and the Olympic lottery. The Minister summarized the background of those three programs by mentioning their ups and downs.
Olympic coins did not yield the expected results because we thought we would reach a larger number of people by marketing the coins in about 55 countries of the world. However, let us not forget, and this is demonstrated today, that all workers in the world have the same problems as the workers in North America: spiralling inflation and chronic unemployment. As concerns stamps, I believe that

June 20, 1975
Olympic Financing
the repeated strikes have been one of the major causes of the lack of success in that area.
The minister indicated that the Olympic Lottery is a great success. I believe one of the main causes for the unprecedented success of the lottery is the publicity that has been made for years in favour of lotteries, Olympic or otherwise, or should we say invitations to participate in a risk of some sort, because Canadians love to take a chance. We should not be amazed at a deficit, considering the tremendous increase in construction costs over the last few years. There were in addition protracted strikes and salary increases that were not foreseen at the initial planning stage. We are now living in 1975 and must face up to those contingencies. Are we going to drop the Olympic Games because of such incidents? If we put the question to the workers who have been doing their part for the Olympic Games, to all the athletes that will participate, I am convinced we will get another kind of answer than the one we hear from certain speakers in this House.
As for the economics, there is a parallel with Expo 67. Because criticisms that are now levelled were heard before Expo. It was suggested that was a loss of time, of money, and so forth. But today we hear it said it was a good thing. It cost money, but it also brought revenues. We must not forget that Canadians are not the only ones to pay. Canada will get 75 per cent of the money from abroad. Yes, we will receive 75 per cent of the money from abroad. If we were to build houses, we could not count on foreign money. This in my view is one way of bringing in foreign capital. And I suggest it is economically viable.
As far as sports are concerned, I believe this is a triumph. People say nothing is done for amateur sports. I believe this will be amateur sports' triumph, if we want to further amateur sport, I think that the ideal of any amateur sportsman will be to participate in the Olympic Games. I cannot understand that any hon. member here in this House could possibly be unable to see a link between amateur sport and Olympic sport. If there is one, we must absolutely and consequently recognize the other. Now, everybody wonders "Will it be too expensive?" That is the question everybody is asking today as during Expo 67. It is too expensive, it is exaggerated, prices are too high. Today, Madam Speaker, I think we can say it is too expensive because everything is expensive. And nobody can forecast if next year we will not have 20 to 25 per cent increase.
A moment ago I heard someone who said: "I had anticipated such a year. He did not forecast anything because that sharp increase could not have been foreseen. And it is the same for all countries over the world. Our own country is not smarter than any other country. And I think that as far as forecasts are concerned today, we must bow to the facts and manage as best we can. But what is important is to achieve our objective: Canada has committed itself to host the Olympic Games and it must honour its promise lest it become the laughing stock of the world.
I think that the Olympic Games will have, at the development level, the same effect as the Montreal Expo which was the beginning of the extensive road system in Montreal. We will see such a development during and after the Olympics. It is useless to maintain that it will contribute nothing to Montreal, to Quebec and to Canada. We must not be that narrow-minded.

The representative of the Progressive Conservatives told us that the Liberals were totally inconsistent, because they were trying not to get involved in the administration of the Olympics, that they introduced a first bill promising that it would be the only support granted to the games. But today, they are presenting Bill C-63. For my part, I must congratulate the minister for introducing that bill because, having recognized that the aid was not proportionate to the efforts made by those who are now in charge, he realized that the government should give a little further assistance. I think that the bill will be welcomed by COJO.
As far as the NDP members are concerned, as we heard it a moment ago, the whole thing is too grandiose. It costs too much. Rather, we should think about housing and transportation. And yet, Madam Speaker, they are in favour of health, they say they are in favour of amateur sports; therefore, generally speaking they are in favour of sports and they continually demand more leisure. The problem should not be allowed to be displaced under the pretext that politically, it would be more valuable. We are not considering transport, health or housing, we are talking about the Olympic Games. Will they be held here? Will we be able to hold them here? Will they cost too much? We have to answer these questions.
I merely say that there must be a time for everything, but that everything must be done in its proper time. Today, we are discussing the Olympic Games; tomorrow, we will discuss transport and housing in Canada; today, however, we must consider a very urgent matter, namely whether the Olympic Games deserve the bill before us, the federal assistance which is offered today.
A moment ago, I heard the NDP member criticize the government for introducing this bill and he seemed to be saying that expenditures had not been sufficiently restricted.
Of course the government could not limit expenditures. The government is not involved in the organization, it is not involved in the administration. It provides help. The government simply donates to the Olympic Games. It is simply a donator. If the hon. member wants to criticize, he should go to the Olympic Games Organization Committee and voice his criticisms there, not to the government. When the government provides help for some deserving group, it is not involved in the administration of this group. It cannot be blamed for doing nothing about its administration. It gave its promise not to get involved in the administration and it is keeping this promise. However, at the beginning, it offered help. Could it perhaps have placed too great a limit on its promise, by saying that the only help it would provide would be the first bill on the stamps, etc.? It is the only one. It is making this new attempt because it now realizes that everything has gone up; wages have increased because of strikes, and as time goes by, it costs much, millions of dollars. The price of materials is 30, 40 or 50 per cent higher. I suppose that is why the minister is sponsoring this bill today, because as we did a year or two ago, he expected the final costs to be well established, but they exceeded all estimations. Even if the then minister had been asked to make estimations and to stick to them for five years, it would have been impossible. I shall vote for the bill.
June 20, 1975

Having considered all increases and additional administration expenses, the minister is consistent and in this bill, he will reach another part of the population. I wish him all the success he expects from this new bill, so that the province of Quebec can be told about it. In the beginning we could hear throughout the province of Quebec: "The federal is doing nothing". This afternoon, the minister gave very interesting statistics when he said that he had allocated $1 million to pay for the travels and accommodation of the athletes and $25 million for the CBC. While a budget of $56 million is forecast for the CBC, the federal government will give $25,300 million to the National Film Board. We can therefore see that finally, despite what was said at the beginning, the federal government will do something. It has already done something and it will do more, and I urge it to hold on to the end, whatever criticisms it receives, and to go on working for the honour of Canada and the welfare of Canadians.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, my first words are to apologize to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) and to the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) as I missed their participation in this debate for reasons beyond my control.
I want to say that I am rising to participate as the Postmaster General whose specific role is clearly enunciated in the original bill, and that is to report to the House of Commons on certain aspects of the self-financing programs, namely, the coins and philatelic items. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), as I usually do. He is always sincere, if misguided. We do not live in a fishbowl, and we do not live in isolation. It never fails to surprise me that the philosophy of the New Democratic Party is always unorthodox until it forms a government, and then it becomes very conservative. I can sum up his contribution fairly simply by saying: (a) he is against the Olympics; (b) he believes we have our priorities wrong; (c) he believes there are things to be done in the area of housing and slum clearance. Madam Speaker, very few people would disagree that there is a need for housing, slum clearance, more help for senior citizens, medicare, and so on. We all agree with this; it is a motherhood issue, in a way.
I would remind the hon. member that as on so many other occasions, the New Democratic Party seems to think it has a monopoly on this type of thinking. We all feel the same way, Madam Speaker. But life is not that simple. One does not devote all one's attention to one priority. I will not be surprised if the NDP votes against the bill. I just hope they do so from conviction and not for political expediency. If it is the latter, they might find themselves unpleasantly surprised.
In the 10 or 15 minutes toward the end of his speech, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley said that he would support the Olympics. I have become a good friend of the hon. gentleman and I know he thinks very deeply about international affairs, very deeply about the Olympics, very deeply about our country. He is one of the very few Canadians who know, from personal experience, the
Olympic Financing
cost, the effort and the time that must be devoted to becoming a perfectionist in a particular endeavour.
It is wrong for the hon. member for Nickel Belt to assume that there was ever a time in the history of the Olympics when those who rose to the top did not do so through an extraordinary dedication to their particular field of endeavour, or that there was not an aura of intense competition. We are all very competitive. The few countries where competition is not provided are very drab societies. We have many areas to improve in this country in the way of social policies but we can say that despite the imperfections it is still one of the better countries in which to live.
We have been participating in Olympic Games for the better part of a century-over 80 years. For 80 years we have had the benefit of the hospitality provided by other countries, some rich, some poor, some small and some large. Now it is our turn to host the Olympics-Canada's Olympics, not Montreal's. If there are any who oppose the Olympics going to Montreal-I hope there are not, and I know of none-I can only say that I feel sorry for people who think so narrrowly at a time this country needs to think Canada first and region second.
The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle)-who is not a bad hockey player when he has a good defenceman backing him, as I know from personal experience-are dedicated to seeing the Olympics succeed. In recent months, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley has wanted to make sure that the games are run as efficiently as possible, that the money which has been raised for the games is accounted for as well as possible and that it is spent as efficiently as possible. He wants the Olympic Games to run smoothly and to stand for those things Canada stands for in the world.
The concept of self-financing Olympics is new. It would be wrong to create the impression that there will not be a deficit. Of course, I speak only as an individual; I have no personal knowledge of any deficit. Speaking as a member of parliament charged with a particular responsibility, I say that we should meet our commitment, which is to help the Olympic cause. We should help the Olympic committee raise a certain sum of money through COJO. It is the committee's responsibility to keeps costs in line. At no time has the federal government, as the Minister of Public Works reminded us when he spoke, committed itself either privately or openly, officially or unofficially, to assume any deficit which might or might not exist when the Olympics are over.
Having said that, I say as a Canadian and as a Montrealer that it is time to stop knocking the Olympics. This time next year we shall be on the eve of the Olympics. Let us adopt a positive attitude. If we do, the deficit could be much smaller. I think all Canadians should adopt a more positive attitude than the one displayed so far by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. If you want to be pragmatic, think of the thousands of jobs in the construction industry the games have created. The hon. member for Nickel Belt suggested that housing should be given priority. I am not arguing that his priorities are not laudable; I am simply

June 20, 1975
Olympic Financing
saying that there are times in the life of a nation when other things are important.


John R. Rodriguez: What's more important than housing for the people?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Some people in Canada like to sit in front of a colour television set on a Saturday afternoon and watch a sports event. Their neighbours may prefer to go in the evening to Place des Arts and hear a semiamateur rendition of Faust. It all depends on what entertains you. People follow sports, amateur and professional, and they need not apologize because that happens to be their chosen form of recreation, their chosen form of escape from the problems of an ever more complex world.
In this bill we ask for little. It is apparent that we are committed to the raising of a sum of money which was determined several years ago when I was not a member of the cabinet but a member of this House. We are asking for the right to deviate from the provisions of the original bill to the extent that we want to mint a gold coin. But we do not ask the House for any right to raise the total face value of the $450 million worth of silver and gold coins which are to be minted; nor are we asking to increase the $250 million figure, the figure which would have been reached if certain events had not taken place and which, hopefully, may still be reached. This money would be turned over to the committee for the financing of the Olympics. I was pleased to note that the Minister of Public Works indicated in his contribution to the debate that we intend to help the financing of the Commonwealth Games to be held in Edmonton in 1978, with a similar program.
Sports, at least in the province I come from, are more important than almost anything else, including education, in bringing together the various elements of society. When the hon. member for Joliette and the hon. member for Verdun are playing on a team, they forget very quickly that their only difference is that of language. When you are playing hockey or any other sport, professionally or as an amateur, you are not worried whether the person on your left is English, French or of any other ethnic background, provided he protects your blind side when you look the other way.
There has been a tremendous spin-off from the Olympics. I don't know about anybody else, but when I wander around at eight o'clock in the morning I am almost knocked down by civil servants jogging on the streets. I do not know what they are running from: I know it is not from their minister, or to him. Perhaps they are following some Treasury Board directive. In all seriousness, we are learning what other countries have known for centuries that your mental and physical processes work better when you are fit. Physical fitness is becoming one of our priorities in Canada. I think the Olympics have contributed to this spirit.
Last night a Canadian editorial writer said that it is time Canadians stopped knocking the Olympics in Montreal; it is time they stopped being negative about the deficit. I agree. The games will be one of the wonders of the world. They will be as successful as we can possibly make them, and already we have learned an awful lot. For instance, Olympics will no longer be awarded to cities, but to countries: although the games were awarded to Mont-

real, they will in future be awarded to a country. This will go a long way toward meeting objections raised by hon. gentlemen and others. The games will be more highly decentralized and we can reduce cost pressures on an individual region, costs which have prevented many Third World countries from participating as hosts.
Hosting the Olympic Games is no easy task. When you think about them you must pause, reflect, approve, innovate-then return to reality. No doubt in many ways the Olympics have become overcommercialized; perhaps the underlying theme is no longer that of brotherhood. But the answer is not to destroy the Olympics, not to destroy an institution of society and then think about replacing it; the answer is to reform it from within. This process is going on as a result of the lessons we have learned.
Whether you like it or not, this first experience in self-financing has been remarkably successful, if you consider how much it was estimated would need to be raised and what has been raised. The three programs which the House permitted, those involving stamps, coins and lotteries, have been successful. The target of $290 million will be reached. The lottery has actually exceeded expectations. While the coins have not reached their potential, the lottery has exceeded its potential. On the philatelic side, it will probably be on target. If there is a deficit, it will not be because we did not raise the sums of money needed but because of escalating costs associated with the Olympics.
In all fairness to Mayor Drapeau and CO JO, I do not know of anything today that has not escalated out of sight. Every country in the world is faced with the problem of inflation. It would be rather naive to think that a project as big as the Olympics, physically and in every other way, would not also be subject to inflation that was unpredictable when the concept of bringing the Olympics to Canada was thought of several years ago. We have to be fair. I understand that labour costs, salary costs, promotion and all the rest have escalated. I do not know whether there is waste or to what degree there is waste. I do know that inflation has reared its ugly head internationally. I know it has had a detrimental effect on the over-all cost of the Olympics. However, it seems we have spent a lot of time on the deficit, to the detriment of the Olympics Games themselves.
The Olympics will take place in 13 months whether we like it or not. As Canadians, we must either develop a positive attitude or continue in a negative spirit. I happen to believe that they will be a success, not simply for Montreal but for this country. I gauge that by the interest in amateur sport across the country and the interest in Olympic tickets. Ticket offices have been flooded for requests from one end of Canada to the other.
I want to speak for a few minutes about the coin program and the philatelic side of the operation. I say in all sincerity to the member opposite that the questions he asked are pertinent, positive and deserve an answer to the degree to which we are capable of doing so during the committee hearings. I must come back to the point made by the Minister of Public Works, namely, that we have limited responsibility at the federal level. From the very beginning we limited to the greatest possible degree any
June 20, 1975

commitment to participate in the deficit. For that particular reason we have stayed, I will say, at arm's length; we have asked; we have checked.
I will be appearing before the committee. I am certain that any questions asked about my area of responsibility- which is a direct one; coins and stamps-will be answered with conviction and truth. If I cannot answer, I can guarantee this House that some official will. If he does not answer honestly and sincerely, he will be on unemployment insurance the next day. That is the best I can promise.
I know the hon. member did not intend this, but if we are to use the committee as a witch hunt, spending several weeks unintentionally developing a negative attitude to the Olympics, we will once again contribute to the deficit. Every time there have been problems, work stoppages, construction stoppages, material shortages, concerns with meeting IOC the date, inquiries in Europe by the IOC, this group or that group, or there has been any other uncertainty concerning the Olympics, there has been a direct negative effect on our program. I can show that by the graphs put together indicating the uncertainty and the sales.
If in committee we can once and for all get rid of the negative attitude in this country and get behind the program, we will go a long way toward meeting these abnormally high costs of the Olympics and making a success of our program. It needs a positive approach from all Canadians. I say "all" Canadians because we as politicians often get out of touch. There is a greater acceptance of the Olympics outside the House of Commons than inside, as the official spokesman for the New Democratic Party made very clear.
I am going to touch on some times that I think the hon. member and others would like to know about, without, of course, intending to go into committee of the whole at the moment. I must take slight exception to one remark made by the hon. member: it was about the competence of Mr. Page, and his salary. There was an inference that the coin program is not a success. I think we are very fortunate in our choice of Mr. Page. This is the first time in our history that we have tried to raise money in this way. It is very hard to gauge success since there is nothing to gauge it against. However, it is significant that we had to begin at day one on a successful level. We have not had the same opportunity as private enterprise with one, two or three years of deficits in order to build up the operation. We have needed to have success from the beginning.
There have been a lot of abnormal, unforeseen events which have affected the silver coins program. Nevertheless, I am convinced we will surpass the realistic target of $100 million. My appraisal of what has been going on, from very detailed questioning over the past week, indicates that we will reach or surpass the $100 million in the silver coins program. At no time did we suggest $250 million. The bill states that in the event the program "takes off," we are not to turn over more than $250 million. It is fortunate that we did not put a ceiling of $32 million on the lottery. It is bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars. The three programs, together, which this parliament permitted the organization to adopt will, in the final analysis, reach the total that we set out to meet.
Olympic Financing


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to clarify my statement with regard to Mr. Austin Page, the director of the coins program. The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) made reference to my statement. I never questioned Mr. Page's competence as the managing director of the coins program. The only thing I touched on was that it was a little surprising that because of the fact the coins program is doing so poorly, which in fact it is, having reached less than 10 per cent of the amount-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I hope the hon. member is not bringing in the concept that we should be paid according to our value, because there are 265 salaries in the House of Commons and a lot of members are underpaid and a lot are overpaid. If Mr. Page had taken the job on a percentage basis, he would be making a lot more money than at present, because it has netted COJO over $100 million in the short time he has been in charge of the program. I suggest, as we have had an increase in pay, that he should be the last to make any inference about Mr. Page's increased remuneration. We suggested profits to COJO of $100 million. We will, I think-I say "I think" because I cannot promise it-surpass that amount.
We were authorized to mint not more than $450 million in coin and we will stay within that boundary, including the gold program. We are presently selling the silver coins in 75 countries around the world. We have had to do this beginning within six months of the passage of the original legislation. We sold in the first year close to $100 million worth and grossed about 30 per cent, which is good for any business starting out; I do not know too many companies in Canada which have been able to match that. We have paid our own costs, and not a single penny of taxpayers' money has been used in the program. The expenses have been taken from the gross.
The program which Mr. Page supervises employs 500 people directly or indirectly in manufacturing the coins, packaging, supplying, marketing, and distributing to over 1,500 Canadians at the moment. We contributed $40 million last year to Canada's balance of trade and we have, I believe, made a lot of new friends and customers for Canada around the world.
As the hon. member knows, there have been events- and I do not wish to gloss them over-which have affected sales beyond the first series. Not least, of course, has been the tremendous increase in the cost of raw material-in this case, silver. We had a difficult decision to make. Should we make the coins smaller, should we debase the currency, should we reduce the silver content? We refused to do it. We were producing coins of sterling silver and we still are, coins of the same dimension and of the same high quality, in line, I think, with our responsibility to the Canadian people. Even though to decrease the value of the coins would be to increase the potential profit, I believe the decision taken was a wise one in the light of our high reputation in the coin markets around the world.
We ran into a general recession in some countries, depression in others. Official government policy in Japan negated sales there and, for a while, as the hon. member

June 20, 1975
Olympic Financing
knows, there was difficulty in penetrating the U.S. market. In the year I have been around I think I have done a few things to help Mr. Page rectify the weaknesses in some of these areas.
We are now working very closely with the banks. Some of the chartered banks could have helped a little more than they did. They now seem to be giving us the type of support which I believe the banks in this country ought to be giving us in view of the privileged position they enjoy in our business community. The regional meetings we are holding with senior bank officials have resulted in new pledges that we would receive much greater support from here onward.
We have started a direct mailing campaign. Through Chargex and Master Charge we are soliciting clients among six million potential customers. We are now engaged on the second wave of direct mail credit cards issued by the oil companies. Here is another mailing list of ten million names. Robert Simpson and Woodwards have been kind enough to place our pamphlets on their subscription lists and this will enable us to reach another 1.2 million subscribers. Simpsons-Sears have already participated through their stores; they have been good corporate citizens, particularly in Toronto. I am pleased with the help given by Mr. Burton, and from our conversation I think they will go even further in the future. We are discussing the program with other large companies such as Eatons and the Bay.
Pay-roll deduction arrangements are already in place with Air Canada. We are negotiating with Canada Steamships and Imperial Oil. The response from Air Canada has been remarkably encouraging; many employees have taken advantage of the pay-roll deduction scheme to buy coins, including the back issue. Of course the coin dealers are participating but, as the hon. member knows, business in this sector fluctuates depending upon whether the dealers are speculating or whether they are dealing in a more traditional manner.
Without boring the House with too many of the details I can discuss later in the committee, may I say that in addition to this we are touring 30 Canadian cities with our art display. We have turned over hundreds of thousands of dollars directly for the benefit of amateur sport in this country and the training of athletes.
As to the operation in the United States, we are working directly with American Express, and through their direct mail service we have sold 40,000 subscriptions in the last two months. We are still getting many calls for the first set. So I would say the American market is finally being penetrated. Shell, Penney's, Gimble's, Macy's are all participating. There seems to be a more positive attitude, less resistance to and more awareness of the beauty of Canadian coins.
Europe has been our best market, our most stable market, because collecting is traditional there. It is a form of hedging and we are aware of it. We are doing our best to expand that market even further. In the far Pacific we are dealing through 500 various banks and we are finally penetrating the Japanese market through the credit card system.

Finally, may I say we are working extremely hard to promote the silver coin program in this country, and I believe events will prove that Canadians are accepting these silver coins in very large numbers.
This brings me to the subject of the gold coins. We have a standard of excellence in this country in our coin program and one which we do not intend to debase even for the Olympics. Our gold coins must contain sufficient gold as not to make a mockery of gold coinage. Yet we must be realistic; we cannot simply turn over $100 worth of gold dust for a $100 bill. We have to hit a happy medium and produce a result which will appeal to the traditional speculator in Europe as well as to Canadians who are less concerned about the value of the coin as measured by the amount of gold it contains, but who give more consideration to the fact that it is money of the realm and can be used as such at any time.


An hon. Member:: How much gold?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member asks how much. Well, we shall be producing the gold coins in two qualities to sell for two prices. I am talking because I am not sure how much gold they will contain. I am looking. We measure gold a little differently from silver. The expression used is "fine gold". I would say there would be at least a quarter of an ounce in one and at least half an ounce in the other. In other words, we would have a coin for the numismatic market, polished and so on-all the things collectors appreciate-and the other would be more of a circulating coin, a coin which would be sold by the banks for $100 plus a small premium. So we are asking Canadians to invest $100 in paper money for a $100 gold coin plus a small premium. And I think people will accept it.
We must not forget, though, that we have a responsibility to coin collectors not to flood the market with gold coins. So again we have a problem deciding how many will be minted. This is being worked out, and it is one of the questions I can answer during the committee stage.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, may I say that I think the contribution of the hon. member for High Park-Humb-er Valley in recent months, and the contribution of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, who sometimes gets under our skin because he reminds us periodically that there are certain values of life that we tend to forget now and then, have been positive ones. The time has come to think positively about the Olympics, and I will do my best to help establish that mood by being as forthright as possible with hon. members when we get to committee stage.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I am certainly very happy to take part in the debate this afternoon on this bill which aims at ensuring the success of the 1976 Olympics.
I listened very attentively to my colleague from High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), and I know that the government members also listened with interest to his observations, which I found quite relevant in view of the importance of the credits voted to these games. I therefore think that if it is normal that we should pass legislation to
June 20, 1975

finance the games, it is also normal that we should demand to know what is going on and what use is made of these funds.
I am very pleased with the remarks of my hon. colleague and the speech of the Postmaster General who, all in all, has invited us to adopt a positive attitude towards the Olympic Games. I feel he was right in urging hon. members to adopt an objective, positive and fair attitude in that matter. On this basis, there will be a number of questions to be asked in committee, and they will be asked objectively, so that the Canadian public may understand better how the money is being spent and the reasons why costs are rising so rapidly.
As many of my colleagues, I have noticed that the hon. member reminded the government of its priorities. I feel that his comparisons were somewhat questionable and irrelevant. It is clear that a government must have priorities. I think that physical fitness and motivation through the Olympic Games should be one of the government's priorities. I am very happy that mention was made of the diversification or decentralization of the various sports. My colleague, on my right, would like to see a certain amount of decentralization. I agree; the idea is very sensible; my only regret is that the idea was not discussed when Canada submitted its application for the Olympic Games to be held in Montreal.
In any event, there is some decentralization in my area, since the archery contests will be held in the beautiful city of Joliette. And of course I rejoice that my riding should be so honoured. Mr. Speaker, the Olympic Act, which was passed almost three years ago, was meant to meet the needs at the time. Optimism ran high with regard to the act and the financial resources which were expected to be adequate. So, maybe we could ask this question. What happened since, in view of the fact that the Minister deems it necessary to introduce a new legislation, which we will support without any hesitation? I was quite eager to support the first bill, and I would also like to understand first the reasons underlying the presentation of a second one. Of course, we could dwell a long time on inflation, which caused some difficulties, particularly strikes. I think there are things people do not think about, and these are the requirements of the International Committee concerning facilities.
I know the International Committee is very demanding. Would it not be appropriate to urge those responsible for the Olympics at an international level to be more serious and practical when speaking about facilities and services we want to provide to athletes and which athletes require themselves? I know from a most reliable source that COJO has the problem of answering very costly requests, and of course initial estimates have been exceeded. By how much? Both sides were shocked by the additional costs. I would like nevertheless to put a couple of questions to the hon. members, since I think it is important today to appeal to the understanding of the hon. members on the issue of additional costs. We have a right to ask COJO officials to explain the reasons for these increases. For the National Art Centre in Ottawa, I think that the final cost was six or seven times higher than the initial estimate and the climate was far better; there was no inflation. We had no difficulties in the building industry. I
Olympic Financing
feel that we could think of other people who also committed errors before thinking of those who evaluated the cost of the Olympic Games. I do not remember the initial cost of the Mirabel Airport and I still do not know how much it will cost. When such evaluations or comparisons will have been made, I think that we may be in a better position to understand the situation and that COJO administrators will have achieved greater success than those who were in charge of both these projects.
Not so long ago the government seemed to want to refuse any additional aid. It gave us the impression that it was trying to stay clear of the problem because several people and organizations were criticizing these additional costs. At the time I regretted the government's intention to stay clear. The idea of supporting in principle as well as in fact the project of holding the Olympic Games in Canada in 1976-had been accepted by the government, and I think that we must now appeal for the open support of each and every Canadian. I feel it is our responsibility, as Canadians and as members of this House, to provide for and facilitate the financing of these games. I deem it unthinkable for us to try and stay clear of the project.
The government introduced today a bill that will hopefully provide for the financing of the games. I listened with much interest to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) when he referred to the great number of services now offered for the games. I know this will involve many thousands of dollars, in addition to this new formula for financing COJO's administration. I am very interested in and I appreciate the efforts to help in the achievement and success of the Olympic Games. I feel that, as members of this House, we must objectively try to provide for easier and more numerous services on the occasion of that event.
Some measures were announced for athletes in particular, and it must be remembered that this participation is at the national level. What did we do, for instance, to prepare our athletes for competition? This is a highly pertinent question. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who his responsible for amateur sport, has indicated for a few years that more money will be voted. But I feel it is not enough to speak of institutions. The cost of these institutions looks high, but I believe that people are more important. People, as athletes or individuals. This Olympic spirit that will grow out of competition makes us wonder whether we should not have been preparing ourselves a number of years ago. To what extent do we have an adequate amateur sports' policy, as far as our athletes' physical fitness and training is concerned? I suggest many things could be said on that question. In my view, we should ask special attention from this government in order that efforts be made, that much more money than is now spent be provided.
Creating an Olympics spirit is one thing, but the necessary tools must be used to interest the public in better physical fitness. Although all Canadians will not go to the Olympic Games, that spirit of competition is desirable and essential. However, better tools must be provided in every area, in every district, to promote physical fitness and make it possible for people to work up to a better shape.
69V6

June 20, 1975
Olympic Financing
We know the beneficial effects this could have on the health of all Canadians and I take the opportunity to point out-since we are speaking of millions which will be spent for international competition purposes-that it is important for a country such as Canada to get prepared and well prepared. It is unfortunate that we had to rush our preparations, at the last moment when we are going to spend millions-I am a little concerned-to have athletes not as well prepared as in some countries. And those who will be an honour for Canada are those athletes who spent great energy and efforts for many years.
So I think we can and must take the opportunity to remind the government that even after those Olympics we will have a responsibility toward the physical training of every Canadian. After the event, we will have to think of that lack of preparation, that lack of interest we have shown so far as legislators, and of the importance to recover the time lost to assure to all Canadians the physical training they are entitled to.
The government has responsibilities toward these Olympics. As Parliament members, we also have responsibilities and I think that the concept of those responsibilities is certainly shared by all members in this House. It is wrong to suggest that because we are the opposition we will delay the bill or harass the government. We have questions to ask; it is normal that opposition members ask questions because that is how Parliament works, but I think we will do it in all objectivity so that we can give the public the information it is entitled to.
I would say that the dice are cast and that we must succeed. These Olympics will take place in Canada. And the issue is this: How much will they cost? Certainly that question is important. I think that we must be more positive than negative and that we must consider the possibility of succeeding. We must take that opportunity to demonstrate to all nations what we as Canadians can do in the face of such important competitions and such a worthy goal.
Shall we have to appeal to the generosity of all Canadians and rely on a more open-minded and understanding public? Of course, it is always possible to draw comparisons with such and such policies, with such and such government objectives. We are concerned with the Olympics, we are dealing with a problem, with an act which is very important since success is involved and we have this responsibility as lawmakers, at least in my view, to help and encourage these officials.
I say once again that I hope this House will support honest, sensible and practical financing as much as possible. We do not know the exact cost of the Olympics but hopefully we shall have the opportunity to obtain more details which will be necessary for the implementation of this objective. I think we should consider the possibility of assuming some responsibilities and I hope that as members of this House, we will be willing to contribute to the success of this event by responding readily to any appeal which may be addressed to us, although, as I said before, it does not entail any other obligation on our part than the pride of contributing to the success of the Olympics for all Canadians.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to put a few remarks on the record about this bill. I took part in the debate the last time and, as I recall, I was the last speaker before the measure was passed. As the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) has said, we support the principle and the spirit of the Olympic Games. I do not think there is anything we want to see more than the success of the Olympic Games in Montreal. Whether there is a deficit or not is something else again, but certainly we want to see the games go ahead and succeed.
I think we all shared the feelings of many Candians a few weeks ago when there was some doubt about whether the games would go ahead. I was sorry for the people at COJO because of the events that have taken place in Montreal in the last few months. These people are not responsible for the strikes, the disruptions, the police commission report, or any of those things which cast a cloud or a pall over the Olympic committee's efforts. We support the principle and the concept of the Olympic Games and we want them to be a great success. I know they will be, and that Candians generally will be very proud of our contribution to the Olympics.
I was rather surprised by some of the remarks of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). It seems to me that in the last few weeks I have spoken following that hon. member, so I have had the opportunity of taking a few shots at him, as he does at us when he has the opportunity. I was more than surprised when the hon. member said that in his view the Olympic Games would not do anything for the mental or physical health of the children of this country. That is a very surprising statement in view of my own experience, which I should like to relate to the House to illustrate what the Olympic Games mean to me as an individual.
When I was seven years old I had polio. I was cripped, wore braces, and used crutches. This is an experience that not very many people have had. When I was in bed recovering from this illness I used to dream about the Olympics. One of the great athletes of that day was Glen Cunningham, whom I am sure the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) remembers. He had been caught in a fire, his legs were badly burned, and he was crippled. I remember my mother reading me a story about Glen Cunningham and how hard he worked to recover.
After several years of determination, exercise, falling down, being bruised, cut, and exhausted, I learned to walk again. Then, after a few years, I learned to run again.


John R. Rodriguez: Very touching.


William James Kempling: You would not understand it, because you have not been through it. I learned to run again and, in fact, although I never reached Olympic calibre, I never stopped trying. I can remember the exhilaration I felt the first time I won a mile race. I remember the great feeling I had the first time I completed the 25 mile marathon. To me it was a tremendous achievement because I had gone through the horrible experience of having had polio, being crippled, and not being able to walk.

June 20, 1975

I think the greatest experience I had was being involved in an international event in which Glen Cunningham was one of the competitors, and I had the opportunity of pacing him in the warm-ups. I did not make the Olympics, but any one who says that the Olympics do nothing for the mental and physical health of young people knows very little about life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: As a boy I dreamt of some day being able to compete in the Olympics. Only some one who has been crippled and has come out of it would really appreciate what a tremendous event the Olympics are for young people.
I have heard the remarks of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury), and I take them at their word. I assume that when we hold the committee hearings they will stand by their word to bring to the committee as much factual information as is available.
Why is there suspicion on this side? Why are we asking that certain information be brought forth? I would like to take the minister back to the hearings we had on Bill C-169. There was very little information contained in that bill. As a matter of fact I am rather surprised that the bill presented today did not have an information paper attached to it. It would have helped tremendously if there were even one set around. Unfortunately, I did not see it.
In Bill C-169 there was no more information than there is in this bill. We found that the coins were designated as the legal tender of Canada, and then further on in the bill we found that the minister would be authorized to sell the coins at a discount. To those of us who have had any experience in commerce it was incomprehensible that we should be selling our legal tender at a discount. We had one memorable meeting with the postmaster general of the day, now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), who will remember that meeting because it went on until two o'clock in the morning. At that meeting we found out that there was a Swiss bank which was going to buy $100 million worth of Olympic coins. It was incredible that we, as members, could not learn from the two ministers present at the meeting the name of the Swiss bank. We were told it was confidential information, information which was given to COJO.
I was a new member at the time and I thought pretty highly of the standing of members of parliament. It was incredible to me that we would be sitting at a meeting with two ministers of the Crown and would be denied the name of a bank that was negotiating to buy $100 million worth of coins. It was confidential information. Every secretary in COJO knew about it, but members of parliament who were going to pass legislation to bring this coin bill into effect were denied this information.
Of course we found out the name of the bank. It was well known in banking circles. It turned out that it was not really a bank at all, it was a couple of fellows dealing in foreign exchange. It was not a bona fide bank.
Following that experience we were suspicious that something was going on when we were denied this type of information. The same thing is present in the bill before
Olympic Financing
us. Legitimate questions have been raised by my colleague, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek).
I think we will have an opportunity at these committee meetings to clear the air. Let us get information on the table, let us lay it down, let us get all the suspicions dispelled, let us know what the costs are. Across the country there is tremendous interest in the Olympic Games, which has been growing, and I think the two ministers who are responsible owe it to the people of Canada to dispel the suspicions that float around the Olympic Games and the cost of the construction facilities there. I do not say they have done anything illegal or wrong.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I wonder if I might be permitted a question for clarification. I hope that I did not leave the impression that I can speak with any authority on the cost of anything else but the coins and the philatelic section. What the cost of the buildings will be I cannot say, and I would be misleading the House if I told you that I can speak with any authority on that.


William James Kempling: I accept that. I know the limits of the minister's responsibility in so far as this bill and the previous bill are concerned, but I say to him that here is an opportunity for him to speak to the people at COJO, to Mayor Drapeau and others involved in this affair. Let us get them up here. If we want to, we can meet them in camera, but let us know what we want to know so that we know where we are going. I would hate to think we are going into the final lap in preparation for the Olympic Games with a cloud of suspicion still hanging over us. Let us get it out into the open.
If they estimate they will have a $500 or $600 million deficit, let us have that estimate. It would be good business practice to let the COJO people beat that deficit, and get down under it as much as they can. I realize that it is not the minister's responsibility, but it should be someone's responsibility. I am aware of the reporting procedure involving the auditor general of Quebec. If necessary, he should be invited to come up here as a witness.
I want so much to see the Olympic Games succeed and I want so much to see the suspicions dispelled, but I think that in many cases the suspicions are well founded. Perhaps the people at COJO have been a little too preoccupied with other things, such as construction of the Olympic site and the strikes going on there, and they have not had an opportunity to let the people know just where we stand financially on this. We know the government's policy so far as its contribution is concerned, but there is a feeling in the back of the minds of many people that this will be another EXPO, that some day somebody will be presented with a bill of several hundred million dollars and the people of Canada will be asked to pay it.
There is a tremendous opportunity at this time for the people who are charged with staging the Olympics, such as COJO, Mayor Drapeau, the auditor general of Quebec, and ministers of the Crown, to dispel the clouds of suspicion, to get the damn thing on the track and to make it go. If we do that, we will be making a greater contribution to the success of the Olympics than any legislation we may pass about coinage.

June 20, 1975
Olympic Financing


John R. Rodriguez: Would the hon. member permit a question? I am aware of the hon. member's support for the concept of the Olympics and I heard him speak glowingly of it. Will the hon. member tell this House whether, if the Olympics ran a deficit of $300 million, he would be in favour of the Canadian taxpayers picking up such a deficit?


William James Kempling: I always enjoy the interjections of the hon. gentleman. That really was not a point of order.


John R. Rodriguez: It was a question.


William James Kempling: The hon. member rose on a point of order. I would want to wait and see what the results of the program will be. I am sure there will be a deficit. I know that the Quebec government has taken a position of support for COJO and the Olympic committee. I think we would have to wait and see what the overrun is, and we will judge it at that time.
I am always intrigued by the remarks made by the members of the NDP, and the last time I spoke in the House I think I said that the only qualification the NDP speaker had at that time for speaking in the debate was the fact that he owned a jockstrap and that he had athlete's foot, and I think that pretty well applies to the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Thanks for the answer, Bill. It was really terrific.


William James Kempling: I know that the hon. member will send that out to all his constituents, and I hope they read it.
With regard to the bill, I had hoped that there would be an information paper because the Postmaster General has said that he estimates that the gold content in one coin would be about half an ounce, and that the gold content in the numismatic coin would be about an ounce.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: A quarter ounce.


William James Kempling: A quarter ounce and a half ounce. Well, that is fine. Now that we have committed ourselves to the metric system I wish we could deal in grams. Perhaps when these coins are minted the gram content could be on the face because it would be more acceptable for their sale around the world. With regard to the coins produced today, there is not a gold coin which contains a quarter ounce of gold, as I understand it. One Mexican coin contains a little over half an ounce, but I suggest that this numismatic coin, the half ounce coin or the 15 gram coin, would probably become quite a good collector's item around the world, particularly in Europe and the United States. I would suggest that the officials should really push this coin in those places.
As we know, the people of France are probably the greatest hoarders of gold in the world, and prior to the United States allowing its citizens to buy gold there was a tremendous future market operating in San Francisco in gold coins. I do not give a damn how we make money on the sale of coins, but I hope that the department will be in a position to publish the fineness of the coin. I notice most of the gold coins in circulation today are about 900 fine-

ness. The British sovereign and half-sovereign are 916, and I think the Russian coins are about 992. That is a pretty high gold content, but I suggest that there is a tremendous opportunity here for us to really cash in on that. I do not agree that we will make more out of the Olympic coin itself than we will out of the half ounce gold coin. I think experience will show that we will probably make more out of the half ounce gold coin.
I wish to conclude my remarks because I understand that we want to dispose of second reading today. I just wish to repeat that the ministers have said that they are prepared to be open and frank with us, or frank and earnest, and I hope that they will urge the people of the Olympic committee, COJO, the mayor of Montreal, and the auditor general of Quebec to come before the committee. Let us clear the air. Let us get this thing on the right track and let us proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE ACT AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR DISCLOSURE OF CUSTOMS DOCUMENTS TO MINISTER
Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill S-15, to amend the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Act as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we understand that the purpose of this bill, which has now gone through the committee, is to give some assistance to Canadian business by way of supplying statistics which would not otherwise be available in law to Canadian businessmen, particularly with respect to imports, and to give them information with respect to the quantity of imports, the unit numbers of imports coming into Canada, and so on.
I gather the purpose of the bill is to ensure that there is some statistical information available to these businesses in order for them to gauge-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.
June 20, 1975


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the hon. member was asking a question.


Walter David Baker: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a motion for concurrence there is no debate, and if the hon. member wishes to make some remarks as to the bill itself he will have to wait for third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mitchell William Sharp: the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to waste the time of the House, but I hope the words I said earlier will be deemed to be included in this portion of the debate.
In view of the fact that this is really an amendment which is to help Canadian businessmen competing with other countries and other businessmen outside of Canada who are importing goods into Canada, and perhaps in the long run as it is one of the steps to reduce the quantity of imports, we intend to support the bill.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, it is now possible to get some information under sections 6 and 23 of the Statistics Act. But with the amendment suggested it would be possible to have much more. This would prove most beneficial to the business circles and would place us nearly at the level of such countries as the United States and Great Britain. But at the present time, as the previous speaker said, it is possible-and he specified under the law-to receive certain data. With the amendment put forward it would be easier to get much more information.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill S-17, to amend the Explosives Act, as reported (without amendment) from
Combines Investigation Act
the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to vote against the bill on third reading but I think we should point out with respect to clause 1 that this is another of those bills that provide for legislation in accordance with the regulations. I understand there are some difficulties with this particular subject matter, but we seem to be falling into the habit of placing so much in regulations rather than in statutes, and this should be commented on each time. There is no doubt of the requirement for this kind of legislation in terms of the principle which is dealt with here. I should like to put on that caveat as we go into third reading. Perhaps we are succumbing too much to government by order in council. This is just one of the latest in this sad history of legislating by way of regulation. Before the bill passes I should like to put that caveat on the record.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I take good notice of the hon. member's remarks. I appreciate the fact that he announced that his party will support this bill. I shall certainly bring to the minister's attention the caveat expressed by the hon. member. It is essential to say that the main goal of this bill is to modernize the terminology of the act, to provide for a much more efficient control of the purchase and possession of explosives and finally, to increase certain penalties. I think it is also important to point out that this bill makes it an offence to leave explosives anywhere.
As for the hon. member's more specific remarks, I think that the government as a whole will take them as notice.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming consideration of report stage of Bill C-2, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[Stage Direction]
June 20, 1975
Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank
Mitchell William Sharp: I wonder if we should call it four o'clock and move on to private members' hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed to call it four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order stands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.


Mr. Abbott:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a consensus in the House after consultation to proceed with Bill S-24, of which I am the sponsor, at second reading stage in today's private members' hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we proceed with Bill S-24 appearing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott), and leave all other preceeding bills to stand in their present order?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE BILLS
Anthony Chisholm Abbott: that Bill S-24, to incorporate the Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my motion is that Bill S-24, an act to incorporate the Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The bill is in standard form as prescribed by the Bank Act, and was amended in the Senate to change the name from the National Commercial Bank of Canada, to remove the word national which had been opposed by certain other financial institutions.
The sponsors of the proposed bank are Boyd, Stott and McDonald Limited, a reputable financial institution which has had considerable experience in the Canadian financial markets, with an acute awareness of the role of the banks, insurance, loan and trust companies that operate in them.
A group of six eminent and responsible Canadians are represented as provisional directors, who will, if this bill is given second reading, attend the meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Without taking an undue amount of the time of the House, I would like briefly to discuss the present position of the banking situation in Canada.
As all hon. members are aware, the banking industry in Canada is dominated by large, successful banks, with a total system encompassing some 7,000 branches. The service provided by this system assures most people in

Canada of ready access to banking facilities. As Canada grows so does its banking system. As a consequence it is now evident that there is room for specialization in banking to supplement the present system. Evidence of this is provided by the recent growth of foreign banks doing a specialized commercial business.
The principal concept behind the Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank is that it is to be a business oriented bank as distinct from a full service bank. Instead of a large multibranch system, there would be a few branches, each of which would be located in a key commercial centre of Canada.
The management of this bank would be specialized in a manner that would be responsive to local needs.
The lending policy would be of a specialized character and would be principally oriented to small business loans and commercial loans in such areas as construction and bridge financing new ventures or resource financing.
Deposits would be acquired in money markets rather than from consumer deposits.
The capitalization of the Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank as provided in Bill S-24 will be $40 million of $10 par value shares. It is planned by the sponsors to obtain an initial subscription of $22 million.
The initial offer to subscribe will be made to Canadian financial institutions, primarily trusteed pension funds.
A feature of considerable importance is that the head office of the bank will be located in the city of Vancouver. As one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in North America and Canada's third largest city it is believed by the sponsors to be an ideal location.
There undoubtedly will be a number of questions which hon. members will wish to ask prior to the passage of the bill. It is hoped that before third reading is given to this bill the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs will provide a full opportunity for such examination.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill S-24, which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott), one of the able members of his caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are a
few.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: As a member of my party's finance committee and a member representing a Vancouver constituency, and Vancouver is where the head office of the Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank will be, I have a particular interest in this bill. However, I also feel compelled to be somewhat critical of the federal government for its past actions or lack of action in the banking field. The west has been ignored by the federal government on many scores, not the least important of which is banking.
Not too many years ago applications for the incorporation of two banks which would have centred their opera-
June 20, 1975

tions in western Canada were rejected. A few years ago, when the provincial government of British Columbia wanted to own a minority interest in the proposed Bank of British Columbia in order to ensure its safe and early birth, permission was refused. Despite that, the Bank of Columbia was launched with the moral support of the British Columbia government; it is thriving and serving well the needs of British Columbians.
That was not good enough for our new premier who, just one month ago, announced the creation of a new financial institution to serve the financial needs of the citizens of B.C. Being unable to invest in or create a bank, British Columbia will form the British Columbia Savings and Trust which, says the premier, will give the people of B.C. a real alternative to the traditional types of financial institutions.
What has the federal government done? Last fall, in response to pressures from many quarters, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduced Bill C-7, which received first reading on October 3 of last year. This bill has the dual purpose of enabling banks to be incorporated by the ordinary letters patent method rather than by special act of parliament, and of enabling a provincial government to own up to 10 per cent of the stock in a bank. That is a fine move, you may say, and without binding in any way my party to the support of Bill C-7, I would say that I agree. My party has not made a decision on Bill C-7 because, as everyone in this House knows, only items which the government brings forward for debate can be considered. Until the government presents Bill C-7 for second reading, to be followed by committee consideration, the stale old procedures must be followed. Keeping a bill on the order paper for eight months is no way to improve the banking system.
The government's inaction is what has brought on today's debate. One may be inclined to think that there are too many banks; but one must look at the areas which are being well served, and then at those which are being badly served. Until recently head office-which means eastern head office-approval was required for relatively small business loans to Vancouver businesses. Legal limits have been increased, but the total availability of credit is still subordinated to eastern needs.
The proposed Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank is backed by an extremely active and obviously capable group. This group's credits include the Mortgage Insurance Corporation of Canada, which was incorporated by act of parliament in 1963 and which complements the insuring of mortgages by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This company permitted the creation of high ratio insured loans and has largely eliminated the old style high discount, high cost second mortgage.
This group which is proposing the establishment of the new bank has also been responsible for the uncovering of large pools of capital for use in the west. This has been done through the Morguard Trust Company and its parent, Morguard Investment Services Ltd., which was founded in 1966. Since then the company has invested two thirds of its funds, or some $400 million, in mortgages in western Canada, and nearly $200 million in mortgage funds has been raised in western Canada.
Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank
Now these perceptive gentlemen have found a further need, which they intend to meet. The new Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank will be a businessman's bank, and my colleague from Mississauga outlined in some detail some of its proposed operations. We ought to take note that it will be owned by businessmen, operated by businessmen, and will be doing business with businessmen. The managers of the large pension funds, and other funds are looking for an investment like the Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank into which they can place their funds with confidence. It is not the intention of the promoters, if I may use that term in the businessman's sense, to seek out the average, individual investor, and the stock of this new bank will not be listed on any stock exchange.
Managers of local businesses in the west are looking for a business oriented bank to fulfill their needs. As I pointed out, in some cases businessmen in the west have found it difficult to obtain loans simply because the large banks are eastern oriented.
The new bank will be operating in the relatively sophisticated money markets, but will not need to tread with the extreme caution with which the deposit oriented banks must tread. I submit that the bank will be better able to accommodate businessmen in their operations. It will also be of continuing benefit to the ordinary businessman who needs temporary, extra capital quickly with the local approval that this new bank will be able to give.
For all these reasons, and for others which may come forward, I am hopeful of the support of all members so that this bill can be considered by the standing committee.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, normally I see little merit in creating additional chartered banks in this country, as over the years it has become obvious that chartered banks are not prepared to take some of the risks which must be taken in an innovative society. Therefore we need people to enter the banking field who are prepared to take greater risks than chartered banks are normally prepared to take, and to lend money to businessmen under conditions which ordinary chartered banks would not accept. For that reason I support this bill on second reading and say that it ought to be sent to committee where important questions can be raised.
Having heard the previous speaker say that we need local banking institutions in the west I hope, if and when the government of British Columbia comes before this House and proposes the establishment of a bank to be incorporated by the government of British Columbia, that proposal will meet as much sympathy and understanding as the proposal now before the House has met.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 20, 19V5
Canada Labour Code


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know if anyone else over there knows what we have agreed to, but I suggest that there is general agreement to consider at this time the second reading of my bill, Bill C-249.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: And to debate the question of railway pensions dealt with in my bill, No. C-325, to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Does the House agree to consider Bill C-249 standing in his name on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we on this side have agreed. I wish to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whether he will give consideration to my railroad pension bill in the same way we are accepting his.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree, Mr. Speaker, but it is not my consent that is needed. It is consent from the government side.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I think yours is quite necessary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I guess it is a matter of give and take. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-249, to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for ten general holidays with pay), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that has been around for a number of years in one form or another. The House seems to be in a congenial mood this afternoon. It has already passed one bill and sent it to committee. There have been other expressions of good will. One can always hope that this bill might at least be sent to committee by five o'clock today.

The purpose of this bill is to add two holidays to the list of holidays included in the Canada Labour Code. Perhaps at this point I might indicate that the legislation respecting holidays in Canada is somewhat mixed up. First, there are holidays under federal jurisdiction and holidays under provincial jurisdiction. There are holidays that are simply declared by law to be holidays and that is all there is to it. But in the case of the Canada Labour Code there is a provision that certain days be listed as holidays and that people get those days off without loss of pay. There is also a provision about extra time that workers will be paid if they are required to work on those days. It is that law, the Canada Labour Code, which I am seeking to amend by this bill this afternoon.
I again make the point that in so far as federal jurisdiction is concerned we can deal with labour matters for about only 10 per cent of the working population. The other 90 per cent of the workers in this country come under provincial labour jurisdiction. The dividing line is set out in a rather lengthy portion of the British North America Act.
If I may capsulize it a bit, the general rule is that persons employed in industries like railways, steamships, communications, banks and so on, those businesses that are clearly nation-wide and clearly cross provincial boundaries, come under federal labour jurisdiction. Therefore the holiday arrangements for railway workers, bank clerks, and some of these other groups come under federal law.
Each province makes its own law regarding holidays and whether workers will get extra pay if they have to work on those holidays. However, there is a fairly general rule that the provincial laws are pretty close to the federal law. In some instances the provinces get ahead of the federal. In other instances, the federal leads the way.
I make these few introductory remarks, not in the hope that by passing this bill it will settle the question of holidays for all workers in Canada, but that it will help to set the pattern. If we can get to the point where we have ten days in the year that are holidays, in the sense that the workers get extra pay if they have to work and do not lose pay for not working, for the 10 per cent who come under federal labour jurisdiction, it will not be long until we have the same provisions under the provincial laws across this country.
I would like to say a word or two about the history of this bill. When the present labour code was brought in so far as holidays are concerned, the then Minister of Labour, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), had in it a provision for seven general holidays. That is what they are called in this legislation. In other words, there were seven days workers would get off without loss of pay, or for which they would get double or triple time if they had to work.
When that bill was going through the House, actually in committee of the whole, we were able to get added to that number one more holiday, namely, Remembrance Day. That is the law at the present time. There are eight general holidays in the Canada Labour Code. Thus there are eight days that workers must get off without loss of pay or, if they have to work, they get overtime rates of pay.
June 20, 1975

I should like to read the list of those days. They are days that everyone would guess. Before I do so, I should like to point out that in the law as it now stands there is authority to substitute a different day for any one of these. For example, in the province of Quebec, St. Jean Baptiste Day can be substituted for one of the others and so on. Those days actually named in the Canada Labour Code are New Year's Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, as it is called in the law, July 1, Labour Day, Thanksgiving, Remembrance Day and Christmas.
Shortly after we got this list of eight general holidays set out in the law, I started bringing in a bill to add one more, a ninth day. The day that I proposed was a day the equivalent of the civic holiday that is observed in most parts of Canada on the first Monday in August. I remember well some of the debates that took place on that bill. In fact one member across the way, who used to take part more often in private members' hour debates than he does now, took part in it.
When I was asking that the ninth holiday be in August, ski enthusiasts said why not make it in February. I remember saying that if it were in February, others would say why not make it in August. Some wanted it in August. Some wanted it in February. The compromise was simple. When I brought in the bill the next year I put them both in, a day in August and a day in February.
There were also arguments about what to call the day. We on the opposition side run into this all the time. It does not matter how good a suggestion we make, from the benches across the way there has to be some criticism of it or some other suggestion to make. I decided I would meet that by drawing my bill in such a way that it would provide for an additional holiday in August and an additional holiday in February without, so far as the bill is concerned, either naming the precise dates or giving names to the holidays. I suggest that could be arrived at in either one of two ways. It could be done either by proclamation or it could be done by the committee to which the bill may be referred. In other words, my desire is to get a February holiday and an August holiday for those workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction whatever the precise dates or whatever names might be attached to those days.

So, Mr. Speaker, for a number of years now I have been calling for these two additional days. In the meantime others have proposed various February holiday. One former colleague of mine had one; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has a proposal for a holiday to celebrate the birthday of the first prime minister of this country. There were several other bills-Heritage Day, Flag Day, and so on.
Several of those bills got referred to the appropriate standing committee a year or two ago, and out of that standing committee came a compromise or a consensus, which was to the effect that there should be a day in February and that it should be called Heritage Day. Well, it almost got through in the last parliament but it did not quite make the grade. The committee made a repbrt to that effect, and we were on the way, but we never got there. In this parliament the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville
Canada Labour Code
(Mr. MacGuigan) took it upon himself to put in a private member's bill, C-208, which if I am correct spells out precisely what the committee in the last parliament recommended, and he therefore proposed that there be a holiday in February to be known as Heritage Day.
I think it is a piece of irony that his bill, C-208, has got along fairly well. It has received second reading, it has been through the standing committee and it has been reported. It has gone through the report stage and all that is required now is third reading, but for some reason or other the hon. member does not seem to wish to move the third reading motion.
On the sheet of paper which is sent around and which tells one what is scheduled for private members' hour, I find his name. Today he is to respond to my second reading motion on Bill C-249. I am not suggesting there is a conflict of interest and that he is going to oppose my bill just because he wants his. If he would move third reading of his bill-C-208-and there was a chance of getting it through, I would sit down right now and let him do it. I do not detect any offer, though. He does not stand.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I hope it will make the point I want to put to the House that I think it would not be unreasonable for me to ask for my bill, or the subject matter thereof, to be sent to the committee so there can be further discussion about this whole question. If I am told that the only difference between my bill and the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville is that his calls for a holiday in February and mine calls for a holiday in both February and August, I would point out that it is not the only difference.
The bill of the hon. member merely declares Heritage Day to be a holiday. There would be some proclamations, and fine speeches, and patriotic utterances and so on. But there is no provision for pay for the day being taken off as a holiday; it does not provide for any overtime pay for those who have to work on that day. That is the difference.
My bill not only provides for a February and August holiday instead of just one, but it provides that those days be listed in the Canada Labour Code and therefore get the benefit of holiday provisions under that law. That is why, since the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville does not seem to be proceeding, as much as I wish he would, with his Bill C-208, I should like to see my bill go to committee so there could be discussion of two points-one, that we add another day to the list, and two, that we put them in a category that will provide for the day off with pay for the workers of this country, and for overtime pay for those who have to work.
That is the situation, Mr. Speaker. Some may say that an August holiday is enjoyed by many Canadians already and ask why we should put it into the code. Well, it is not there now and therefore it does not become a holiday with pay for railway workers and others covered under the Code. It is a holiday only in those cities where the civic administration declares it to be a holiday. Whether or not workers get the holiday depends, of course, upon their collective agreements or the arrangements between employers and employees. It is only when you get holidays listed firmly in a code, such as the eight I have named which are in the federal code and the holidays which are listed in the provincial labour codes, that you get holidays

June 20, 1975
Canada Labour Code
which are holidays in the full sense, so that workers get paid when they do not work on those days. I think there is definite room for improvement in this situation.
I heard some cracks around when I said I had a bill to present today. I was asked what it was I was trying to abolish. Well, I am not trying to abolish anything. I am trying to establish something, namely, that there be at least ten paid holidays in the Canada Labour Code for the workers who come under that legislation, and that in so doing we lay down a pattern which I hope may be followed by the provinces.
I have the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that there is nobody in the House of Commons who disagrees with this idea of increasing the number of holidays. I have the feeling there is nobody who disagrees with the idea that if we are going to provide holidays then our workers should get paid for them. I know the chances of the bill getting passed and on down the road in this last half hour of Friday afternoon, are not as good as they might be. But certainly the matter could be given the further study which goes with the bill itself or its subject matter being sent to the appropriate standing committee.
This is one more chapter in the long battle for sufficient numbers of holidays with pay. I think having one in August for sure is a good idea. I think having one in February for sure, to break that long spell between Christmas and Good Friday, is a good idea, and I hope that one way or another the House will show its support this afternoon and agree to send the bill or even its subject matter to the appropriate standing committee.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), whose time in this House has been marked by a continued desire to improve the lot of Canadians who might be considered disadvantaged. I think he takes second place to no one with respect to that.
I am one of those who share the view that it is not necessarily wrong that there be a couple of extra holidays in a year-with pay, as he said-and with whatever would be deemed reasonable in terms of extra compensation for those who would have to work on those days. In an age when our society is becoming complex, when many of the industrial functions are becoming routine and boring, and some of them, I am told by some people on assembly lines, are becoming mind destroying, there is some advantage to that kind of thing.
I want to say something with respect to a different form of holiday that we might consider in the course of considering this bill when it ever gets to a committee, or the subject matter gets to a committee, and that is what is really behind that word holiday. I don't mean this necessarily in the theological sense, but a holiday can have a religious connotation. It can have a national connotation. It is a day of celebration in some way. It is not just a day of recreation.
If we are to establish a day, whether in February or August, we should think of it as a celebration by Canadians who live in a country that is rich when compared with

other nations of the world, not just in the monetary sense but in terms of the advantages inherited by its citizens. I speak of the democratic way of life, the importance of institutions, the right of dissent-all those things important to people living in society, things that are denied other people in many other countries of the world. In fact, we are a minority among nations.
If we look upon a holiday in that sense, we should dedicate it to a celebration of the richness that we enjoy in this country by giving something back to the country in a voluntary way. We give something to our country in terms of our taxation. We give something to our country in terms of the work we do as Canadians. We give something to our country every day we become involved in community activity. But these contributions tend to be isolated instances; in the national sense there is no co-ordination with respect to them. Therefore a lot of the things that could be done, that are attempted in a hit and miss fahion, could be co-ordinated in a national day of celebration.
I hope that in considering this bill one of these days can be set aside as a national community development days, a day when we give something ourselves in the voluntary sense in developing our communities. I suppose we are concerned about the fact that our society is becoming a less desirable place to live as we pack more and more people into fewer and fewer acres of land. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) says he is fighting the problems of our cities, and so he should be.
We are polluting our air with our waste, in the same way as we are polluting our waters. We denude the country of trees. Perhaps for one such day we might consider something like an arbor day when each of us would resolve that somewhere in this country we would plant a tree, or we would take part in cleaning up a piece of public property for nothing, or we would engage in projects to clean up the rivers, creeks, and other bodies of water in our area, in an organized way. We could also remember the tremendous disadvantages faced by some of our citizens, the retarded children of this country who need our attention the most and get it the least.
In that sense I look upon this not as a day of rest necessarily but as a day of voluntary work, a day of commitment. For those who cannot partake in that day of commitment in a voluntary way, perhaps we should each make a contribution from our salary or wages to a charity or some organization for the public good in our community. That would be a real celebration of the fortunate situation we enjoy in this country. The organizations to which I am referring were not established to assist the advantaged, the fortunate; they were established to assist the unfortunate. Those who have the ability and good fortune to work could perhaps make that kind of contribution. Others, young and old, could make a contribution to the development of their community in some of the other ways I suggest.
Think of the joy that could be brought into the hearts of our senior citizens if on one of those days each Canadian took it upon himself in an organized fashion-members of parliament do this all the time-to go and visit a senior citizens' homes or hospital. I was in a senior citizens' home in my own riding yesterday. One not dedicated to those who can help themselves but to those who cannot help
June 20, 1975

themselves. There was great joy on that occasion; it was a very happy occasion for many people. It was the first time in a long period that any one of those people had seen a group of individuals enjoying themselves. They live their lives in pain, and in many respects in loneliness. Can you imagine the contribution that would be made to the well being of our country and to those unfortunate people in particular if each Canadian agreed in an organized way to give up a holiday, a day in front of the television set or on the golf course, tennis courts, or a day at the cottage, and visited some unfortunate citizen?
I do not know whether any member has had the experience I have had of visiting a hospital and talking to someone I have never met before. The fact that someone is paying attention to that unfortunate person for a few moments is a great experience for him. If each of us did that sort of thing we would bring more joy into the world in one day than we could imagine.
I and my children are fortunate to live in a community where men and women in the community have dedicated themselves and their leisure time to the training of young boys and girls in such mundane things as hockey, football, and softball. They do this in many ways. What a difference it would make to that community if each of us as Canadians showed an interest on that particular day in the young people who are working to excel and to compete in a healthy way. Perhaps we could engage ourselves in an organized manner by getting to know one another in the sense of the differences that exist in our country-people who are different from ourselves, who are newcomers to Canada and who want to make as great a contribution to the country as other people.
I dare say, Mr. Speaker, there could even be a parliamentary appreciation day of some kind. Perhaps that might be worth-while in view of some of the things that have happened over the last little while. I am appalled when I go into schools, and when I speak to organizations, at how little information there is about the operation and importance of this place. I know members of parliament try to occupy themselves in educating our young people, but many Canadians could occupy themselves by coming to this institution or by studying this institution and the provincial institutions in this country.
I have mentioned a number of topics, but if we are going to give ourselves a day off from work I think it is important that it not be a day that is wasted in the sense of our country. A day off from work is never wasted in the sense of ourselves, but it ought to be a day off that is not wasted in terms of our country. If we are to deal with this bill, let us deal with it from the point of view of advancing our community, the people who live in our community, and our worth-while institutions, not from the point of view of just advancing ourselves indirectly.
I should like to hear the views of other members, and I am particularly interested in the views of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) on this matter because of his usual contribution to the debates in this House. I know the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan' has some views on this matter as well.
Canada Labour Code
If we are to give ourselves that extra holiday, which perhaps we need, then I would put it to the members of this House through you, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps our country needs the efforts which are generated on that holiday a lot more than we need the holiday itself.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not find myself in any conflict of interest here this afternoon, and I might say I was very pleased to note the strong support given my bill, C-208, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let's pass it then.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The reason I happen to be responding this afternoon has nothing to do with that bill, but rather, since this bill purports to amend the Canada Labour Code, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour it is my duty to speak during this debate.
I do welcome the good intentions and the support of this House for my bill and I hope it will yet receive third reading and pass this place. There is also, I understand, even the possibility that there may be some government initiative in this area which would, in that case, ensure that this holiday would be established in time for the third Monday of February next year.
The mail which I have received on that bill, and undoubtedly other hon. members have received similar letters, would indicate that there is some concern on the part of people in this country, and especially the members of the business community, that we are in the process of establishing too many holidays in Canada. Perhaps they would be more reassured were we not trying to establish them as paid holidays.
Actually the very notion of holidays has aroused some people to very considerable concern at what they consider to be a time when Canadians should be working more rather than less. While I respect that sentiment, I would say that I do not share the feeling. It seems to me that for those who have to work, especially those who work with their hands and their bodies, even as many as one paid holiday a month, some 12, would not be an excessive number.
I would further say, Mr. Speaker, that I see no problem in principle with the bill the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has presented, certainly not for my part and I believe not on the part of the government either. The principle is not in question. All that really is in question is how far we should go by legislation, and what days we should actually pick as the days that should be established as our holidays.
The preliminary data from the 1973 Working Conditions Survey in respect of federal jurisdiction industries indicate that 95 per cent of the employees had nine or more paid general holidays, even though the legislation now requires only eight days. Seventy-nine per cent of employees had 10 or more paid general holidays. In all industries, the percentage of employees having nine paid holidays or more was 84 per cent, and the percentage having 10 or more paid holidays was 62 per cent.
June 20, 1975

Canada Labour Code
In 1973, collective agreement data show that 92 per cent of all employees in federal jurisdiction industries, and 85 per cent of all employees in all industries, received nine or more paid holidays. Seventy-three per cent of all employees in federal jurisdiction and 72 per cent of all employees in all industries received 10 or more paid holidays.
The above data thus show that a large majority of employees receive nine holidays or more in a year, while the number receiving 10 holidays or more has increased and now reflects a majority. It will be realized, of course, that the nine holidays enjoyed by the majority differs from province to province and even from employer to employer. The bill presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre leaves some room for the substitution of one holiday for another in cases where the collective agreement would make that substitution.
The impressive percentage of Canadian employees, some 72 per cent, who already have 10 or more paid holidays indicates that this legislation would not be driving us very far beyond the norm that has now come to be accepted in collective bargaining in this country.
This is not the first time, of course, the hon. member has presented us with such legislation in this House. He has been carrying out a good role in bringing it before the House over the years. I think in every session of parliament he presents identically the same bill, or one very close to it, and I have no doubt that perhaps on some occasion, perhaps even today, it will be rewarded with second reading, and eventually perhaps even passage.
In the present situation, as the hon. member has indicated, the Canada Labour Code provides for eight general holidays with pay. This standard came into effect in 1965, some 10 years ago. Perhaps it may now be thought that this lapse of 10 years is enough time for us to reconsider the legislative requirement.
When we compare the proposal before us with provincial legislation we see that not all the provinces have similar legislation. Some provinces lay down requirements requiring pay for work done on public holidays and, among those that do, some require different numbers of holidays, not all with exactly the same figure. Some require the payment of overtime for work done on a number of public holidays.
In some other countries, such as the United States, I believe the matter of general holidays is still left to the process of collective bargaining, and this question is one of the matters, appropriately a most basic matter of principle, that ought to be applied to a bill of this kind. But in light of the fact that the Canada Labour Code already recognizes that there should be a minimum number of paid working days, I think that would not be a substantial objection to legislation of this kind in Canada.
We do now have a guarantee of eight days, and I think the real question we should consider at this point is whether the days which are proposed in Bill C-249 are the ones which are most aptly added. Considering the fact that the hon. member's bill provides for the substitution of some days, I suppose there is not really a problem here of very great difficulty.

It should be noted that many collective bargaining agreements provide for the celebration of Boxing Day as a holiday, probably many more than provide for the establishment of a day in February, which is the preferred date certainly in my own bill. I take it that is also the wish of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) expressed a very strong admonition in respect of how we should observe our holidays. I think we would all agree with him that Canadians ought to celebrate their holidays in a very worthwhile fashion, but I would hesitate to suggest that this House lay down in legislative principle that Canadians should do such and such on a particular holiday, and I did not really take the hon. member to be suggesting something of that kind. He did speak of the many good things that Canadians might do on holidays, which we on this side trust that Canadians are doing every day, as are we ourselves, and as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton indicated he was doing. I think probably that kind of consideration is one which is best left to the good judgment of Canadians and their generosity, rather than legislated in a bill of this kind.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not specify a particular date in February. If the Heritage Day legislation were followed, it would be the third Monday in February. The justification for having a celebration at that time is not only the chronological one, that it is the time of the year when there is a long break between holidays, but also that it is a very appropriate time to celebrate our national heritage.
Obviously there are some links between a holiday in February, at least the concept of that holiday as the national Heritage Day, and our Dominion Day, or Canada Day, or whatever name we decide to give it. In a sense both holidays cover the same ground, but Heritage Day in particular reflects the diversity of our people. It indicates the fact that Canadians come to this country with different heritages. The heritage that is to be celebrated is the collective heritage. While we have many points in common, there are also obviously many points of difference between us. This should be drawn to the attention of the Canadian people through the proclamation of that particular day.
I might add that one of the thoughts in my mind in proposing that day as a holiday was the feeling that it would be better if it were held some time during the school year. I recall that during my days in school we prepared for every significant holiday with concerts which would be staged, and young people were taught about the particular day for which they were preparing, whether it was Empire Day or Victoria Day. I would similarly envisage Heritage Day in February, being long enough after Christmas to allow grade school students, with the assistance of their teachers, to prepare colourful programs for that day. Of course, the appropriate time of the year for such activities by school children is when school is in session.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself supports that day or a day about that time, as well as a
June 20, 1975

holiday in August which I think is probably celebrated in the majority of provinces.
There remains the vexing question of what to do about Boxing Day and whether or not it would not be more appropriate as one of the paid holidays than the days that are to be proclaimed. However, my own view is that, since we are merely establishing a minimum here, if other collective agreements wished to provide that Boxing Day or any other day or days would also be proclaimed as paid holidays, there would be no conflict because it would simply be an additional day to be added to the minimum number of days which are provided for here.
So I am happy to say that I am in agreement with the bill proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I could support that bill if it should come to a vote this afternoon, and I hope that the fact that he has drawn this need to our attention again, if it does not result in success at this time through his legislative efforts, will again remind the government and the people that this is an area in which further legislation is necessary for the benefit of the working men and women of our country.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this chance to speak on a subject that is very important to me and that has been important for many years before I came here. In this life of high pressure we can hardly call this a debate. It is rather a dialogue on something we agree is essential.
I suspect that the principle behind this bill will cause less argument than the debates and names of the holidays. I am sure we will argue over the date on which a holiday should fall and about the name which should be given to it. I would like to suggest-and I will probably get into an argument over this-that perhaps the first Monday in December should be proclaimed a holiday in order to prepare for the pressure of another holiday, the Yuletide vacation. I say that lightly, but, as you know, winter time is the time in life when you need rest most, when the days seem long at times and the months drag on.
I do support very strongly a February holiday. Having been in industry and having been a negotiator of trade union contracts, I can say that we have negotiated this in many contracts across the country. My own guild has searched for a holiday time and has decided that a paid holiday should be set. Since there was no other appropriate time, it was decided that everybody's birthday would become a paid holiday.
I would certainly welcome a break in mid winter, in February, when rest is essential. We need that time to rest
Canada Labour Code
from the heavy stress and long months. In fact in industry they are now talking about shorter weeks of work to achieve greater production. They have found that the mind is more alert, people survive on the job better and are more productive when they work only three or four days a week. It seems to me that if industry were realistic it would welcome an extra holiday in order to increase productivity, however slightly, which would result from a rest during winter.
As to the summer time, I am not very excited about a summer holiday because most of us find a way to enjoy it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is nice for the kids,


Simma Holt: It is nice for the old kids and it is nice for the young kids.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: The nine statutory holidays are already negotiated into numerous contracts. Even ten or 11 paid holidays are contained in contracts with many unions in the west. If we get ten days in this House, I am sure negotiations will start for 11 and 12 days. We would all welcome it, and I am sure that industry would profit by it. This bill does not pose any major problem, but it leaves the big responsibility of the selection of the day, whether in February or in August, to be proclaimed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or to be decided by the standing committee.


Simma Holt: Yes, to the standing committee. I do not think the problem of the cost is so great because it has already been negotiated into contracts. The 1973 working conditions survey with respect to industries under federal jurisdiction indicates that 95 per cent of the employees had nine or more paid general holidays, and 79 per cent had ten or more paid general holidays. In all industries the percentage of employees having nine paid holidays or more was 84 per cent, and the percentage of employees having ten or more paid holidays was 62 per cent.
Any debate is academic at this stage since a further holiday is already in existence and I think it will ultimateiy-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired and it being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock on Monday afternoon.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 23, 1975