1982-06-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing urgency, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Figures released this week by Statistics Canada show that the average income for women in 1980, the last year for which reports are available, was only half that earned by men. This situation is grossly unfair in a country which recently adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing equality for men and women. To ensure that women have equality in fact and not just in theory, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That this House urge governments, business and labour unions to recognize that true equality for women will only come about when there is true equality in the workplace, and that immediate steps be taken to redress the inequity that presently exists where the average income of women is only half that of men.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the question of equality for women in this country is one which surely speaks to every Canadian who feels that all individuals in this country should have the opportunity to make full lives for themselves. They should have that opportunity whether they live in the eastern part of the country, the central part, the western part, the northern part, whether they be men or whether they be women. There should be equality for every person to carry out his or her full development. This equality does not exist at the present time for almost half the population. In 1980, the latest year for which we have statistics from Statistics Canada, the average income for women was only $8,200 compared to $16,700 for men. This inequity is something which all of us as legislators should work together to remove.
I urge upon all members of the House that they appeal to governments, to businesses, both large and small and to labour unions right across the country to tackle this situation as an immediate priority so that this inequity could be redressed, without saying redress is something that has to come about in 1990, or the year 2000, or some long way down the road. It should be an immediate priority now for a country which sees itself as civilized, humane, and enlightened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, I agree completely with what the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has said. But I would go even further and suggest that society's attitudes be examined in this country. We should look at our system of education and the way we treat each other as human beings.
I suggest that hon. members of this House take a good look at one of the most recent reports put out by the Science Council of Canada called "Who turns the wheel?" It takes a very close look at what is happening to women in this country, how they are educated and how their attitudes are shaped at a very early stage in life. Though the hon. member is quite right in saying that we must address the problems that exist in the workplace today, we must address our attitudes immediately to see that those attitudes are erased and changed so that we can look forward to a society in which men and women are indeed equal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, clearly the fact that women earn only half of what men earn in our society is totally unacceptable. The fact that this condition continues shows the inadequacies of policies that have been used to attack this problem to date.
It is time now to look for some new and effective measures, including the use of contract compliance and mandatory affirmative action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1982

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the estimates approved recently in the House allocate funds for programs and services to the native people of Newfoundland, and realizing that these funds have not yet been received by the rightful recipients, and that these people are now at the end of their bank credit limits and are in serious financial difficulty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be instructed to direct his counterpart in Newfoundland immediately to see that these federal funds are allocated as soon as possible to the legal recipients.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That, in view of the concerns expressed by the Corporation of the City of Nepean and the residents of Nepean concerning the extension of Highway 16, the National Capital Commission refuse to allow any lands under its jurisdiction in the City of Nepean or elsewhere to be used for the proposed extension of Highway 16 along the route identified as the Cedarview corridor route.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in light of Falconbridge's announcement of its intention to reduce its permanent work force by 25 per cent, or approximately 1,000 workers at its Sudbury operation, and considering that the poor state of the nickel market is a reflection on the disastrous mismanagement of the Canadian economy, I move, seconded
by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker):
That this House instructs the government to recognize its responsibility to get the Canadian economy going again, and also resolves that the government recognize its responsibility to provide assistance and alternative employment for the Falconbridge workers and their families in Sudbury.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONGRATULATIONS ON ACHIEVEMENT OF RECORD-BREAKING EXPORTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to propose a motion which I trust will receive the unanimous consent of the House. Two years ago, Canada exported a record 21.7 million tonnes of grain. Last year we fell just short of this record, with 21.2 million tonnes. Later today, or on the weekend at the latest, with seven weeks still remaining in the crop year, Canada will break its all-time export record. We are well on our way to reaching the Wheat Board's target of 26 million tonnes. This is an unparalleled achievement. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That this House recognize the outstanding efforts by all those involved in the production and transportation of grain in surpassing the all-time export record well before the end of this crop year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the said motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the serious unemployment crisis within Canada's mineral industry, resulting largely because of collapsing economic confidence and the anti-investment
June 11, 1982

policies of the federal government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook):
That the Joint Government-Industry Task Force on Mining be requested to meet immediately on an emergency basis to develop a strategic action plan which will save the jobs of more than 200,000 mine and service workers faced with extended shutdowns and lay-offs, and that the task force be requested to report its recommendations to the Parliamentary Committees on Natural Resources and Public Works, and on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, before the end of June.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation bulletin for builders advertises the Canadian Rental Supply Program which promotes the construction of rental units. In Manitoba, the Winnipeg regional office has restricted this program to Winnipeg and Brandon. Contractors in other areas, such as the riding of Dauphin and the riding of Churchill, where there are centres with either a zero or low vacancy rate, are calling this discriminatory. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the Minister of Public Works responsible for housing look into this situation and immediately take some action so that contractors in communities outside of Winnipeg and Brandon can benefit under this program.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the chairman of the Trust Companies Association said that there could be casualties in that industry if the present economic conditions last for another six months. Since many
Oral Questions
companies in other industries besides that one are now talking in terms of how many months they will be able to survive under the economic conditions which exist today, will the minister commit to the House that he will present alternative policies in his forthcoming financial statement that will avoid those disasters and lay-offs which will come if companies go bust over the next six months?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a preview of what will be in that statement. I have already indicated to his leader that I intend to make a financial and economic statement, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition. I have assured hon. members that it will be made in the House. I cannot give the hon. member any preview of what will be in that statement at the present time.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker,
I am not asking for a preview of the statement. What I am asking, and what Canadians are asking, is whether there is any sense of understanding on the part of the minister that there is a crisis on our hands. The minister's head is in the sand. Both he and the Prime Minister seem to have more interest in going to international meetings than acting to solve these problems in Canada which we can do something about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Is the reason for the minister's dithering about these problems the fact that he still thinks his 1981 budget is the answer to our economic mess, or is it because he has totally lost confidence in his ability to present these policies since he is now batting zero for two in budget making?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question is really not directed either to government policy or government administration. It is a series of political comments which generally decorate his rather futile questions in question period.


FORESTRY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The British Columbia forest industry, which directly or indirectly accounts for half of the total output of British Columbia, is in such dire straits that companies are borrowing money just to keep their plants operating. The president of MacMillan Bloedel now warns that Canada faces the possibility of economic collapse within 90 days unless the government brings forward emergency measures. Is the minister meeting with forest industry

June 11, 1982
Oral Questions
officials in order to avoid impending bankruptcies in an industry which supports entire communities, and which is the largest foreign exchange earner in the country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member may know, I have had extensive consultations with representatives of the private sector in Canada. In the course of that series of consultations we did hear the views of representatives of that industry and discussed their difficulties which, in the main, arise from depressed markets in other countries. Undoubtedly, that is a source of great concern, but it is a matter that can only be permanently solved with a resumption of economic growth and recovery in the countries to which these industries sell their products.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who, in the last week, has been defending the decline of the Canadian dollar on the basis that the U.S. dollar has been strengthening. Given the minister's argument, how does he explain the fact that it has been reported in this week's Business Week that international money traders believe that the U.S. dollar will decline over the next year, against the mark, the Swiss franc, and the yen, but the Canadian dollar will fall yet further, even against a declining U.S. dollar?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would not agree with that forecast for the Canadian dollar. I believe that to some extent the market is not reacting to some facts which have become apparent in the past few days, namely, the very strong trade figures, and the fact that in the first quarter of this year the current account has moved into surplus. On an annualized basis, if carried on throughout the year, we would probably have either a balance or a surplus on our current account. Therefore I do not share the views of the persons reported in Business Week, with respect to the Canadian dollar. The fact is that all currencies have been depreciating against the American dollar, including the Canadian dollar, but that with respect to the value of the Canadian dollar against most other currencies, it has either held its own or appreciated against these currencies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING STATE CONTROLS
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, those who deal in money deal in facts-real facts, not the minister's facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: It is so bad now that money market traders and foreign exchange dealers, recognizing what this government is doing to the country, are now beginning to refer to the Canadian dollar as "the banana". That is how bad it is in world markets.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


John William Bosley: That is not nonsense. One can check that on the exchanges in Toronto this morning.
Will the minister finally recognize that more investor confidence in Canada, not less, is the only solution to our economic problems and the only way to get Canadians back to work? If he is not prepared to give us a preview of his program for the next two or three weeks, will he at least give us a commitment today that more intervention and more control by government, which would only hurt us even more, will not be considered by the government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has referred to the importance of the improvement of the investment climate. That view has been expressed by the Prime Minister and myself, and I believe that the restoration of confidence in the possibility of recovery and growth is one of the most essential ways of improving the investment climate. On that point I certainly agree with the hon. member.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON POLICY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance as well. Like other hon. members, during the course of this week I have been listening with great care to what the Minister of Finance has had to say. On Tuesday, following the Summit in Versailles, when pressed about the future direction of Canadian economic policy the Minister of Finance said, as reported at page 18204 of Hansard, that he did not anticipate "a basic change in economic policy". Does the Minister of Finance stand today by what he said just a few days ago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do stand by what I said a few days ago. I have repeated that same answer since it was first given on Tuesday in reply to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition.


MINISTER'S VIEWS ON UNITED STATES POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: On that same day, Tuesday, in reply to a question in the House the minister said that because of circumstances in the United States we could not anticipate more than marginal changes here in Canada until there was a major reversal in economic policy in the
June 11, 1982

United States. Does the Minister of Finance stand behind that statement today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 do not know where the questioning of the hon. member is leading him or the House. I repeat my view that, because of the importance of the American economy in present circumstances, unless there is some easement in interest rates, some beginning of recovery in the United States, the prospects are not as bright as they would be if we saw some immediate relief in the United States on the interest rate front, and if we saw some definite signs of recovery. 1 do not believe I have changed my view on that particular point. I do not believe that I have ever urged that, in these circumstances, the Canadian economy does not have problems of its own tjjat have to be solved within Canada. I made reference to some of these problems in my answers earlier in the week.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would remind the minister that earlier this week he said that we could not expect anything other than marginal changes because of American policy and what was, in his view, its overwhelming impact on Canadian economic circumstances. He said that because of that we could not expect more than marginal changes.
Given the disaster that we are now confronted with in the state of the Canadian economy, the depression state forecast yesterday by the Chairman of the Guaranty Trust Company, is the minister saying to the House that after the Liberal caucus meets next week, and after the Liberal cabinet meets next week, if it finally makes a basic change that recognizes the real need is to stimulate the Canadian economy and produce jobs, that he, who has been stubborn in his persistent unwillingness to change policy, will at least have the integrity to submit his resignation to the Prime Minister?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Hillsborough.


CANCELLATION OF DEAL TO EXPORT ONTARIO NUCLEAR GENERATED ELECTRICITY TO NEW JERSEY
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. A Canadian Press story released a few moments ago has revealed that the General Public Utilities Corporation of New Jersey has announced plans to cancel its multi-million dollar electricity purchase from Ontario Hydro in the Province of Ontario. As the minister will know, with proper environmental controls the deal would have had enormous benefits not only for the Province of Ontario but also for the whole country in terms of
Oral Questions
jobs, energy costs, the balance of payments, and the abatement of acid rain on both sides of the border.
Even allowing for the fact that costs were the main factor in the decision of the corporation concerned to cancel the deal, will the minister not concede that his failure to get the federal cabinet to make an early decision on Ontario Hydro's application to export massive amounts of electricity to the United States, bought time for the relevant United States interests to get out of the deal at the expense of Canada?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: No, Madam Speaker, I would not concede that. The news to which the hon. gentleman refers is quite recent. As I understand it, the factors which led to the decision not to proceed with the project stem entirely from considerations regarding financing in the United States. I would have to say to him as well that if it were the insistence of the federal government that a proper environmental review of this project be done, and it was that insistence that caused the delay and that that delay had an impact, I would not regret the delay. It is absolutely crucial that a full and thorough environmental assessment be done. That was the responsibility of the Government of Ontario. It did not fulfil its responsibility, and it was in that vacuum that the federal government had to take the approach that it did to this problem.


DELAY IN GOVERNMENT DECISION
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The fact is that the federal government dithered. It was indecisive, and it procrastinated on the National Energy Board's decision on Ontario Hydro's application to export electricity to the United States. The clear impression has been left that the federal Minister of the Environment is the reason for the cancellation of this project, or at least he gave the Americans time to get out of the project, even allowing for the fact that an environmental assessment may have had to be done.
Does the minister not realize that his indecision, his procrastination, and his failure to get an early decision by the federal cabinet have at least left the impression that it was environmental considerations that caused the cancellation of this project? That means setting back the environmental movement by decades, without any economic or environmental benefit to the country.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I think what I will do with that question is call upon the hon. member for Northumberland, his colleague, to speak to the hon. member, because we are doing exactly what the hon. member for Northumberland urged us to do, and I believe he was representing the official opposition, that is, to apply exactly the procedures and environmental concerns that we did apply.

June II, 1982
Oral Questions NUCLEAR ENERGY


EXPORT OF NUCLEAR FUEL BUNDLES TO ARGENTINA
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, 1 have several questions for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The first question is with regard to the sale and transport of nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina. The minister has consistently failed to respond adequately to questions posed by many members of the House regarding this potential transport of fuel bundles to Argentina. Madam Speaker, 1 think that Canadians deserve a commitment from the minister to make sure that Canada in no way aids or abets the development of nuclear arms in Argentina. Will the minister openly, clearly and firmly state his position? Will he make that commitment to Canadians and, if not, why not?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Madam Speaker.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
Gary Michael Gurbin: That is the same kind of answer we have been getting from the minister for many days now. That is an example of Liberal morality. I think Canadians know that there is in no way any guarantee, any kind of reasonable expectation, that the kind of answer the minister gives us will prevent Canada's involvement.


Madam Speaker:: Order. 1 wonder if the hon. member could give an example of a short question.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I will do my best. I have a little extra time now, because the Minister of Energy does not care to make any commitments here. My supplementary question to the Minister of Energy is in regard to the two announcements today, that Mexico has withdrawn, has sent back our tenders, that GPU has backed out of its agreement and its intention to put an underground cable under Lake Erie to export nuclear electricity, and the fact that the "National Energy Program Update" has looked to that sale, the export of nuclear electricity, for the survival of Candu. In the face of those failures, the repeated failures that the minister has had in all areas of energy, will the minister, on behalf of the nuclear industry, bring about an open parliamentary inquiry into the nuclear industry?


Marc Lalonde: 1 do not know whether my hon. friend would be more satisfied if I were to answer "maybe" this time.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and I gave notice yesterday to his parliamentary secretary
because of the seriousness of the question and the concern. A Mrs. Jennifer Popen, a landed immigrant, was found guilty of manslaughter for killing her child, was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, and a deportation order was signed. The order was to be effective on her release, but it was appealed at a hearing in camera at the request of the immigrant, and a decision was made setting aside the deportation order. I note now that the time for further appeal has expired and that the government did not appeal this particular decision. Why was no appeal filed, and can we be appraised of the reasons for the decision?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in relation to that particular question, as the hon. member knows, it was a case that took place several years ago. The decision was made by the appeal board, which is a quasi-independent body. It judged those circumstances and decided on humanitarian grounds that this particular woman should be allowed to stay in the country. On those grounds the department saw no reason to make an appeal. The grounds were such that it really is a matter of judgment by the appeal board.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He will know, I am sure, that the Mexican government has decided not to proceed with its nuclear power program. Canada, in making a bid, had set aside some $5.5 billion from general revenue to finance this over a long period of time, about 20 years, at 7.5 per cent. Can I ask the Minister of Finance whether he is prepared to reallocate at least $1 billion of those funds to housing, in order to create something in the order of 60,000 jobs and to meet at least half of the shortfall that exists with regard to the number of housing units required?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, if I might be allowed to answer, the hon. members information is incorrect. The government did not set aside anything like $5 billion in respect to the financing of the Candu reactor in Mexico.


Ian Deans: How much?


REQUEST FOR REDEPLOYMENT OF FUNDS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I go back to the Minister of Finance, since the Minister of State for International Trade has indicated that it was not $5 billion. Since I am not asking for $5 billion anyway, and it was certainly in excess of $1 billion, I therefore ask the Minister of Finance will he redeploy those moneys, set them aside, put
June 11, 1982

them to work in Canada to build housing for people that people need, at a price they can afford, and create jobs for Canadians who are currently unemployed?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is still incorrect with regard to the amount of money set aside for the nuclear reactor in Mexico, as I have indicated to this House on several occasions. At the present time the Export Development Corporation is looking at a possible $12 billion to $13 billion worth of projects which it is asked to finance, and never at any one time knows exactly what it is going to be financing in the immediate future. So the hon. member is basically incorrect in his assumption.


FINANCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. 1 and several of my colleagues have received repeated reports to the effect that income tax refund cheques are not being accepted and honoured in banks in western Canada. Can the minister tell me whether that is a reflection of the serious financial position the government is in, or does he know of any other factors that would explain the banks caution with respect to cashing government cheques?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have heard that accusation. As far as I know, we can make good on any cheques that we issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: As far as you know?


Bill Rompkey: The cheque for the hon. member for St. John's East is in the mail! We will honour our cheques, Madam Speaker.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, 1 will, of course, supply the Minister with information I have received from several banks refusing to cash income tax refund cheques. There must be some other factors involved. At least today the minister assured us that the government cheques can be honoured. There is no guarantee, of course, for tomorrow. Will the government undertake to investigate this matter and provide us with a reason why the banks should be so cautious in this matter of honouring these cheques?
Oral Questions


Bill Rompkey: Well, tomorrow is Saturday, Madam Speaker, and the banks are not open, of course.


An hon. Member:: So the government is safe until Monday.


Bill Rompkey: If the hon. member will provide me with the names of the banks and the managers and the phone numbers, maybe I could call them and talk to them myself.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Just a few moments ago he indicated that the easement of interest rates in the United States is fundamental to economic recovery in Canada. Given that situation, surely he appreciates that the easement of interest rates in Canada is fundamental to economic recovery in this country. If that is the case, why does the minister not instruct the Governor of the Bank of Canada to stop forcing interest rates up in order to prop up the falling value of the Canadian dollar?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there is no need to issue that direction, because the Governor of the Bank of Canada has not been following the course of action which the hon. member alleges; and certainly that course of action was not followed yesterday.


FOREIGN AID EXPENDITURES
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, we know that the effect of the endeavour to increase interest rates in Canada has not in fact supported the declining value of the dollar.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance asked in this House whether members would give him specific illustrations of items in the estimates which might be reduced so that those funds might be available for other purposes, and he said that members consistently failed to do so. I have already raised in this House the issue of the very substantial expenditure on foreign aid, $1,742 billion, and asked the minister's colleague whether he would refer the matter of the quantum of foreign aid to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for a quantum analysis. Having regard to my raising this issue again, would the minister refer that matter to the standing committee for a quantum analysis to determine whether that amount might be reduced and reallocated to some useful purpose in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned the hon. member has picked the wrong item because I
18374

June II, 1982
Oral Questions
believe we ought to maintain our international obligations, particularly in the field of aid to less-developed countries. However, having said that, I point out to the hon. member that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are normally before the committee. The estimates have to be called in the committee, and it would be appropriate for hon. members to engage in a discussion on foreign aid and the amount recommended for approval. Indeed, if hon. members wish, they could make proposals on how to reduce that amount. That is open to hon. members. I would not support that particular expenditure cut, but it is the hon. member's right to attempt that and to see how much support he would get for it among other members, including members of his own party. I would be surprised if they would support him on that.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS SASKATCHEWAN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE SCHEME
Mr. Bill Mcknight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I am sure he is aware that under the new Progressive Conservative government in the Province of Saskatchewan mortgages will be offered up to a maximum of $50,000 at I 3.25 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Will the minister assure the people of Saskatchewan that, along with the grab made by the Minister of Finance on the assistance offered to other people in relation to mortgages through corporations and through their businesses, the federal government will not tax home owners on the benefits which would result from the difference between a mortgage rate of 13.25 per cent and whatever a conventional mortgage would be?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to visit and meet with the minister for housing in the new government of the Province of Saskatchewan, and we discussed this issue. I have indicated that I have raised the matter with the Minister of Finance and his officials, but I caution that if provinces and new governments have plans to assist in relation to housing, and if that assistance is at the expense of taxpayers generally across Canada, they at least should have the decency to inquire of the Government of Canada before they are so good with their largesse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark:: Have you ever heard of federalism?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has requested the government of the Province of Saskatchewan and other provincial governments time and time again to assist the federal government in the field of housing. When one province decides to do so, why would this government want to
tax the benefits the people of Saskatchewan asked for and are willing to receive?


REQUEST THAT MORTGAGE BENEFIT NOT BE TAXED
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Ben Ward, information officer in the Department of Finance, was quoted by the Saskatoon Star Phoenix of June 3 as saying that there is a possibility that the program in Saskatchewan may be taxed. The Minister of Finance is the architect of the budget which took benefits from people in Saskatchewan and the rest of Canada. Will he assure us that the difference between 13.25 per cent and whatever a conventional mortgage rate might be-it might be 20 per cent with this government-will not be taxed in the Province of Saskatchewan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will give the hon. member's representation consideration, but 1 am not prepared to make a judgment in reply to his question today.


PROVINCIAL TAXATION AUTHORITY
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, in a similar vein 1 would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. 1 asked him a question on May 19 which is reported at page 17589 of Hansard. I asked him what the position of the federal government was in relation to the taxing by a government of another level of government, and the minister indicated that he would get back to me after he had studied the question. Could we now have his answer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 do have an answer for the hon. member. I would like to read the answer. I have had this matter carefully looked into and advise that the federal government has consistently taken the position that a province does not have the legislative jurisdiction to impose a tax on the federal Crown.


PAYMENT OF MANITOBA PAYROLL TAX
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, that being the case and that opinion being in keeping with constitutional convention, 1 point out to the minister that reports in Manitoba are that Ottawa intends to pay the so-called payroll tax which was in the recent Manitoba budget. Does the federal government now stand by that statement, namely, that it will pay it regardless of the constitutional convention the minister has read out today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we would observe the law of the Constitution.
June 11, 1982


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Now that a ceasefire, uncertain as it may be, has been proclaimed between Israel, the PLO and Syrian forces in Lebanon following the invasion of Lebanon, can the Deputy Prime Minister advise this House whether the government will be providing humanitarian aid to the innocent people of Lebanon who have suffered so frightfully as a result of the ravages of war?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his question. The Canadian government has consistently responded to appeals for assistance for humanitarian purposes, and this certainly would apply to the case the hon. member has mentioned. The International Red Cross has made an appeal for assistance and for medical teams in Lebanon. It is preparing to make another more general appeal, and certainly Canada will be prepared to respond sympathetically to these requests.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister has been going around the country in recent days trying to redefine the problem of extra billing by doctors and calling it the lesser of two evils, and so forth. The minister has been trying to put on a brave-but transparently superficial-face because of her failure at the recent health ministers' conference to get provincial agreement to eliminate extra billing.
Has the minister given up on her intention to eliminate-not to control but to eliminate-extra billing by doctors and, if she has, will she also tell us whether she was ever really serious about her intentions in this regard? There has been one meeting, the minister has packed it in, and she is now going around the country trying to redefine the problem.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, as usual, the hon. member is engaging in rhetoric instead of attacking the real problem. It has always been our goal that extra billing should be eliminated. How can we reach that goal? I hope in due time we achieve a consensus among all the 11 governments, including the ten provinces, which have a direct role in banning extra billing by way of provincial legislation.
I am curious to see if the hon. member makes the same representation to Mr. Larry Desjardins in Manitoba, to see if
Oral Questions
Manitoba is ready to move. We never saw that in Saskatchewan when the hon. member's party was in power there. It is very easy to talk and talk, and repeat false allegations.
I would like to inform the hon. member again and Canadians generally that the last federal-provincial conference was a success in that for the first time all provincial ministers agreed that extra billing existed and was a problem which would be a threat to medicare. All ministers agreed that control of this was essential. The day before the meeting this matter was not even on the agenda as far as some ministers were concerned. I think there has been great success; the first step has been taken. We will succeed in strengthening medicare.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL FUNDING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, obviously the minister is easily satisfied. She thinks it is an accomplishment to get people to recognize that extra billing exists. Speaking of rhetoric, she is the grand old lady of rhetoric herself. 1 warned the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I warned the minister, Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I assume members opposite would not have been as happy had I called her the grand old man of rhetoric. I don't know what I was supposed to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, during the debate on established programs financing I warned the minister that the Minister of Finance was rendering her powerless with his cutbacks in support of health care and post-secondary education, but she was too weak to stand up to him at the time. Will she now admit that this pack over here, the government, through the Minister of Finance, has done serious harm to the future of medicare? Will she admit that mistake now, after seeing what the provincial health ministers can do to her using these cutbacks as a club with which to beat her over the head?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, my colleagues around me say that they hope I do not have to establish either that I am old or a lady. 1 am past that point, so 1 will not comment on the remarks of the hon. member.
1 would like to repeat that he must understand, if he is sincere-and I think he is-in wanting to strengthen medicare once and for all, that confrontation is over. He must understand that. He must accept co-operation and collaboration, if he wants, by the way, to dream of being in government one day. But he does not want to recognize that fact. Provinces must work together with the federal government on medicare,

Jane ! 1, 1982
Oral Questions
and not get into a confrontation situation which, of course, makes better headlines.
He must also realize that although federal transfers to provinces have increased everywhere but at a smaller rate than anticipated by the provinces, the health budget, by reason of the priorities of this government, has fully increased. The provinces will get on average, for every one of the next five years, a 13 per cent increase in funds earmarked for health.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my first question is to the Minister of Finance who has promised there will be a major financial and economic statement made in this House. I ask the minister whether, as a result of that major financial and economic statement, there will be new legislative measures introduced to this House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the word "major" is the right hon. member's word, not mine. I think he will have to wait to see what is in the statement. As I indicated earlier, I cannot tell him today what the results of the cabinet deliberations might be.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this is probably the first time we have seen a retreat before the step was taken. What the minister is indicating to us now is that he is promising the people and Parliament of Canada nothing but a fraud at the end of this month, nothing but some decoration with no content.


CONTENTS OF FORTHCOMING STATEMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Finance give this House a firm commitment that the economic statement which, he promised Parliament will be made while Parliament is sitting, and will contain new measures bringing help to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are suffering because of the economic policies of the government? Will it be a real economic statement, or simply another public relations exercise by this government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I disagree with much of what the Leader of the Opposition has said in his rather colourful and exaggerated Friday morning eloquence. I have no intention of telling the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition what I propose to say. 1 have already told the committee and the House that I will be reporting on the economic and Financial situation. I told him that on Tuesday last, and he is now
characterizing the statement in various ways. I think he will have to wait to hear the statement and analyse it before he can make up his mind finally. 1 do not want to preview my statement, and I wish he would not preview his response.


John Edward Broadbent: You already have.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister has already said that his statement will not be major. He has already indicated there will not be the kind of help that Canadians require from the government if it had any sense of responsibility for the current economic situation.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of state responsible for external relations. Can the minister say with certainty that the Government of Canada knows the final destination in Argentina of the nuclear fuel bundles being sent to that country from Canada?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, 1 will take this question as notice.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, recently in the House the Minister of State for International Trade indicated to me that two Japanese auto manufacturers were negotiating with Canadian parts suppliers. 1 presume he was referring to Mazda, which over a year and a half ago inspected some 15 plants but nothing has really transpired, and Honda, which received a list of 61 suppliers in April, and now apparently because of delays the negotiations will continue until at least August.
The minister must have more details of these negotiations than I do, but I ask him, without making any allegation, whether he is satisfied that they are being carried on in good faith by the Japanese manufacturers, or it is just window dressing, because the minister knows it is impossible to achieve fair trade without fair negotiations?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I will not be satisfied until such time as we see a substantial increase in the sale of Canadian auto parts to the Japanese automobile manufacturers. 1 am not aware whether Mazda is one of the companies. Honda certainly is, and 1 think Nisson is the other company. However, according to the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association there has
June 11, 1982

been a substantial increase in interest by the Japanese automobile manufacturers in purchasing Canadian parts.


ACCESS BY CANADIAN FIRMS TO NECESSARY SPECIFICATIONS
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, assuming the minister shares our concern, as I believe he does, for these Canadian auto part manufacturers, and more particularly their tens of thousands of workers who are unemployed, I would like to ask him about another aspect of what appears to be an unfair trade practice, that is, the after-market or replacement parts for Japanese cars already in Canada, as compared to new parts.
What steps, if any, is the government prepared to take to permit Canadian manufacturers access to the prints and specifications necessary to manufacture replacement parts; second, what steps does the government propose to take to break down the absolute barrier whereby a Canadian parts manufacturer is not allowed to sell to Japanese car dealers here in Canada?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when he first raised his question several weeks ago in the House, which was the first time I heard of the complaint, I asked our officials to undertake an investigation and I also talked to the auto parts association. They are in the process of trying to obtain a contract in order to validate the allegation made by the hon. member. At this point in time, although we have had some verbal confirmation, there is no written indication that this process in fact does exist.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS PAYMENT OF MANITOBA PAYROLL TAX
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance as a followup to the answer he gave to the hon. member for Provencher, because the minister was not especially clear in his answer. Is he saying that even though the federal government has paid a similar payroll tax in the Province of Quebec for some years now, it will not now pay the new Manitoba tax?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, my answers were in reply to the hon. member for Provencher. Those answers still stand.
Tabling of Documents PETITION


MR. GREENAWAY-RECONSIDERATION OF GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the two hundred and sixty-eighth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. EPP-REQUEST MR. MacEACHEN TABLE DOCUMENT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order about which I shall be brief. It arises out of the question period today and a question of mine to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). This question which I asked earlier on May 19 concerned a ruling about the view of the federal government on the constitutionality of one level of government being able to tax another level of government. The minister, and I believe I am correct about this, read from a document. I do not know whether that document was a letter, a legal opinion, or indeed what it was, but I believe the rules of the House indicate that if a minister reads from a document, the document is then tabled. If that was the case, should that document not be tabled at this stage?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I was not reading from any official document. I was reading from my own notes.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[Editor's Note: For above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

June II, 1982
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,116, 4,313 and 4,323.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Dairy Farmers of Canada in their brief dated January 21, 1982 advocate that cheese import quotas be reduced commencing January 1, 1983 over a period of the next three years amounting to an approximate decrease of 20 per cent and, if so (a) is the government giving favourable consideration to this request (b) on what date will the government reach a decision on the matter?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, is the demand for variety cheeses in Canada to a very great extent being adequately met by products produced in Canada and, if so, does the government agree this should warrant consideration of further cheese import reductions?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes. (a) Yes. Officials are giving consideration to the implications of this request, (b) Changes, if any, would normally be announced at the beginning of the dairy year, which is July 1.
2. In 1981, domestic production of variety cheese consumed in Canada represented 80.7 per cent compared to 68.3 per cent in 1975. This increase in the consumption of domestically produced variety cheese reflects the strength of the variety cheese industry in Canada. The domestic variety cheese industry is slowly reducing the demand for imported variety cheese by its production of high quality world class cheese. However, any substantial reduction in cheese imports could have an adverse effect on over-all variety cheese consumption. Canada presently manufactures about 60 different varieties of cheese and imports about 125 varieties.
HOTEL ACCOMMODATION PURCHASED BY DE&I


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Did the Department of Employment and Immigration purchase hotel accommodation and meals services from the Avion Motor Hotel in Mississauga and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) what was the total cost of the services (c) how many meals were involved (d) what was the average cost per meal?
2.	Were any costs related to damages or renovations and, if so, what amount and for what purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. A
contract was awarded, by DSS, on behalf of the Department of Employment and Immigration, to Avion Motor Hotel, Mississauga, Ontario.
(a)	To provide hotel accommodation and meal services to persons detained for immigration pursuant to the authority of the Canadian Immigration Act for the period May 1, 1982, to April 30, 1983.
(b)	This information is not available at this time. However the estimated contract value for the period May 1, 1982, to April 30, 1983 is $518,500 based on a firm rate of $39,279.19 per month for 30 rooms including 8,540 detainee day meals per annum. Any renovations or costs related to damages that the hotel is required to do is included in this firm price monthly rate. The difference between the annual firm price of $471,350.28 and the estimated value of the contract of $518,500 is to cover extra meals.
(c)	Not available. See 1(b) above.
(d)	The average cost per meal is estimated to be $5.
2. See 1 (b) above.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many Class C and Class B reserve force personnel are employed by the Department of National Defence at CFB Gagetown?
2.	Are any plans underway to reduce these numbers?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: 1. As of April 30, 1982, the numbers of reserve force personnel employed at CFB Gagetown were as follows: under Class C conditions of service, 72; under Class B conditions of service, 95.
2. Yes. For the remainder of this fiscal year, it is intended to reduce the number of reserve personnel called out under Class C conditions of service to nine by September, 1982, and to four by December, 1982. The number of reservists serving under Class B conditions will fluctuate from the present 95 to approximately 200 during the peak summer months and then in September decline to about 30 for the balance of the current fiscal year.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Bills (Commons):
June 10, 1982-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-l 17, an act to amend the Criminal Code- The Minister of Justice.
June II, 1982
David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it should be noted that while there is no agreement between the parties as to the number of speakers, there is agreement, I believe, and this can be confirmed, that this bill will be completed through all stages today and accordingly will go to Committee of the Whole.


Madam Speaker:: If that is the agreement of the House, 1 am sure the House will conform to it.


Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-l 17, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and deferred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we gave first reading to this bill to amend the Criminal Code. We are asking hon. members to consider legislative changes which will strengthen the horseracing industry. Without these changes, the industry will suffer continued decline. Some tracks will be forced to close down. Some horse breeders will be put out of business, and some communities will be deprived of a pleasurable sporting event.
Before 1 discuss the specific changes which we are seeking, 1 would like to express my appreciation for the co-operation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and of parties on all sides of the House.
1 want to outline first the over-all size and importance of the Canadian horse racing industry. Despite stiff competition from the lotteries, pari-mutuel betting at horse races is still the number one area of betting in Canada. I should explain that "pari-mutuel" means "among ourselves". It is an apt phrase when you consider that 80 per cent of the total bet is returned to the bettors.
In 1981, Canadians bet about SI.7 billion on horse races, which was up about 8 per cent from the previous year. Attendance held steady at about 14 million people. Gross purse money rose by 11 per cent to about $108 million, and the provincial tax revenue rose by nearly 10 per cent to $129 million. Of the $1.7 billion bet, tracks and horsemen received only 10 per cent, about $173 million. That amount is insufficient when so many people, businesses and communities depend on racing. There are more than 100 horse racetracks across the country. More than 40,000 people are employed in the industry and more than $2 billion is invested in land, buildings, equipment and breeding stock. It is big business.
Track operators' expenses and the cost of maintaining the horses have risen year after year, and yet the percentage which tracks are permitted to retain from pari-mutuel betting has not been increased for more than a decade.
If I may repeat some of the key figures, $1.7 billion was placed on bets; $173 million was retained by tracks and horsemen, split about 50-50; provincial tax revenues amounted to $129 million, which was a substantial amount; and the industry employs about 40,000 Canadians.
My responsibility as Minister of Agriculture with regard to horse racing is twofold; to provide protection for the betting public, and to ensure a viable Canadian horse-racing industry.
Criminal Code
My department's race track division, in co-operation with provincial racing commissions, supervises betting at race tracks to ensure that a fair race is run. The division staff takes blood samples of the horses to make sure they have not received drugs; we provide photo-finish service and video tape monitoring; and we make sure that the tracks abide by the terms of the Criminal Code with respect to commission rates, betting procedures, racing dates and so on.
How do we do this? We do it strictly on a cost recovery basis. The federal levy on bets is six tenths of 1 per cent. It has been said by some that the federal government makes a lot of money. The federal government does not. Ours is strictly a cost recovery program. This federal levy on bets of six tenths of 1 per cent generates about $10 million per year. That just covers the department's expenses, including the cost of running the new equine drug evaluation centre in Jerseyville, Ontario that we have just established.
As an aside, 1 would like to mention that many of the top people in the race track division came to us from the RCMP. They used to be permanent members of the force but most of them are now those who have retired from the force. They have experience and an understanding of the Criminal Code. They have maintained the public's confidence in seeing a fair race, and that is very good for the industry.
The changes in betting practices which I have introduced in the past year and the additional changes which will come into effect when Parliament passes the amendments we are considering today will not only improve the marketing power of racetracks but will also discourage the use of illegal bookmaking by making legal gambling more convenient and, if I may say so, probably more appealing.
The four programs which 1 have introduced through regulations are: more pools per race; new betting pools, such as Win 6 and Big 6; advanced betting; and telephone account betting. These programs are all optional and individual tracks will make their own decisions about whether or not to pursue these new marketing possibilities. Basically these programs have been well received by the industry and are slowly resulting in improvements in revenue earned by the industry.
I should add that there is some reservation on the part of small tracks. I have made it very clear that it is my intention to make the total racing industry healthy, not to hurt it. In no way will 1 allow that to happen.
The changes at which we are looking today will build on to the reforms 1 am talking about. First, we are seeking approval for inter-track betting. In simple terms, inter-track betting will allow a person at one track, or a person who has a telephone account with that track, to bet on horse races at another track. Inter-track betting will be optional, and before any track can use it, it must have the agreement of the other participating track.
Let us take a look at some of the advantages of the system. First, it will allow tracks to make better use of their capital

June 11, 1982
Criminal Code
investment by using their facilities to handle bets on other races. Second, it will give bettors a legal way of placing a bet on major national races such as the Confederation Cup in Flamboro Downs, the Prix d'Ete in Montreal, the Queen's Plate in Toronto, or the B.C. Derby in Vancouver. It would discourage betting illegally on the same races through a bookie.
The track commission would be deducted on behalf of the track sponsoring the race, but other tracks participating in inter-track betting would also receive a share of the moneys bet through their own track. We do not know exactly how much new business would be generated as a result of this kind of system, but we know that major tracks such as the one at Fort Erie may be forced to close unless it has the opportunity to expand its marketing base.
The second of the three changes in Section 188 which we are putting forth is to provide for an increase in the scale of commissions charged by race tracks. At present the legal scale is between 9.5 per cent and 12 per cent of total bets. The proposed scale would extend the 9.5 per cent rate to 10 per cent for large tracks, and from 12 per cent to 15 per cent for small tracks.
There is an acute need for higher commission rates. The daily average revenue received by tracks from the commission rate since 1971, measured in constant dollars, has dropped by 11 per cent. As a result of that diminished return, tracks have been forced to increase their charges for things such as admission, parking and food. This has had a detrimental effect upon attendance which, on an average daily basis, has declined year after year.
When the new maximum fees are in place-and again it is optional for tracks to charge the maximum; they do not have to do it-tracks could take in an additional SI7 million or an approximate 10 per cent increase, plus an additional $11 million if they opt to vary their pool percentages. If tracks choose to deduct the maximum percentage, plus the variance from the pools, the potential maximum increase would be approximately 17.2 per cent, based on actual betting figures for 1981.
The third and final change we are seeking is to allow for the transfer of certain administrative matters to regulations. The bill proposes that the maximum number of betting races permitted and the track commission rate be transferred to the regulation-making authority of the Minister of Agriculture. The new regulations would permit 12 races instead of ten on Saturdays and holidays, without permitting a substantial increase in the total number of races per week. Also, by allowing the track commission rate to be adjusted by regulation, we would be able to react more quickly to the changing needs of the industry.
In closing, I stress that these proposed changes have been requested by the industry and that there is widespread support for them. They will not only improve the marketing base for race tracks and horsemen in the face of serious competition from lotteries, but they will also reduce the betting public's use
of bookies. I know there are those who say that we should do nothing which encourages or facilitates gambling. However, we must bear in mind that betting on horse races has been going on for as long as horses have been domesticated. Historians have proof of horse racing in Asia Minor 3,500 years ago. In Canada, betting on horses has been a common practice for more than 100 years. Today, more than 14 million people attend race tracks annually. Many of these tracks are in small rural communities and need support.
I want to make clear to people who have said that I have gone to off-track betting that we have not and we do not intend to. Race track facilities and pari-mutual betting equipment will be used. Some people are already saying that they want to operate the first off-track betting shops. I want to make clear that we will not have off-track betting shops. We will use the system which is in place.
Race tracks that opt for this system will have to hire extra employees to work in their facilities. Inter-track betting can also mean less use of automobiles, etc. For instance, if one track is idle and it has decided to use a screen in its dining room, people can watch a race which is taking place at another track. In that event they all share in the revenue, and people can spend an enjoyable evening without driving 100 or so miles to another racetrack to participate in their favourite sport of betting. I do not intend to try to take away their favourite sport, but I intend to make it a better operation and a more legal operation than it is. There will be less betting with bookies than at present. There will be more revenue for racetrack facilities, for horse owners, and for all people concerned with the program.
Some people almost intimate that it is sinful to bet. I do not think it is. Even in my church we have such things as bingo, etc. Some people say that our whole system in one big gamble.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: With this government you had better believe it!


Eugene Whelan: I am sure no one is suggesting, even the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), that we abolish the entire system under which we operate in Canada. Much of it is a big gamble-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Canadians gambled and they lost.


Eugene Whelan: I am sure the voters in the hon. member's constituency gambled on him. He is sure that they made a good bet. He approves of that kind of gambling and that kind of betting, so I am sure he will approve of this. There is not that much difference. There is a lot of good horse sense, common sense and economic sense in what I am suggesting.
I urge hon. members to approve the three amendments to this bill to strengthen the Canadian horse racing industry, which is a very important industry in the country.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the motion which is before the House should be corrected so as to accurately reflect the agreement of House leaders, namely that the bill go to Committee of the Whole.
June 11, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. parliamentary secretary earlier referred to the possibility that members might be agreeable to putting the bill through all stages today, including the Committee of the Whole. The Chair put the motion as referring to second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I take it that there is unanimous consent that that ought to be amended so that the motion reads "and reference to Committee of the Whole". Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has some indication that hon. members wish to speak. I just want to point out that, given that correction of the motion, members may prefer to speak to second reading or to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to compliment the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on a speech with which I basically agree. Some of his comments with respect to off-track betting I found offensive but basically his remarks were quite proper and 1 have no hesitation in endorsing them.
I would begin by saying I have got hoofprints on my heart. I have a mother who was born in the Kentucky blue grass country and a father off an Ontario farm. I guess horse racing, by choice as well as being hereditary, is in my blood. My mother used to take me to all the western movies when I was a little boy to see Ken Maynard, Tom Mix, Roy Rogers and Gene Autrey.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What about Hopalong Cassidy?


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Hopalong Cassidy too. I thought she was taking me to the movies because she wanted to see the "shoot-em-ups", as I did. It was later, after I grew up, that I found out that she wanted to watch the horses instead. My first trip to a race track was when I was ten years old and I went with my mother. I have been returning to them ever since. Polo Park in Winnipeg certainly saw a good deal of me during my teenage years.
1 make those remarks in advance to indicate from whence I am coming in regard to this bill. The purpose of the amendment to the Criminal Code is to permit inter-track pari-mutuel betting on horse races, thereby enabling a person to make a bet in person or by telephone at one racecourse in respect of a race being run at another racecourse. The amendment would also remove the requirement that bets on horse races be made only during the actual progress of the race meeting. It thereby permits advance betting on horse racing to be conducted in accordance with regulations made under subsection 188(7) of the Criminal Code.
What does this really mean when we remove the legal language from it? First, it means telephone betting. How will this operate? The first requirement is that you must deposit your money in advance. You open an account, similar to a bank account, at your favourite racetrack. You give your
Criminal Code
name, you receive a number for the account and you will have a code word so that there is at least a double check to ensure that no one can use your account and make bets which are unauthorized by you. Therefore, you phone the racetrack, give them your account number and your code word and the telephone operator will tell you how much money you have on deposit. At that point, you indicate to the operator what horse, what race and what amount you wish to bet. This is then recorded and entered into the mutuel system of the race track.
There is one other double check which is absolutely necessary and which is done. The entire conversation is recorded and maintained. Therefore, if you later discover that a mistake has been made, all that is necessary is to make an application to the racetrack and it will retrieve the tape recording of the telephone conversation which will absolutely determine if a mistake was made. It is a system which we are adopting in Canada that has worked very successfully in the states of Connecticut, New York, Kentucky and Florida. It seems to be almost fail safe and is working extremely well. This is a necessary part of the system.
The other aspect concerns inter-track betting. This means that in my province of British Columbia, for example, there can be a link-up between Exhibition Park and Cloverdale Raceway, a link-up between Sandown race track on Vancouver Island and perhaps some other smaller tracks in the interior which may wish to participate in such a scheme.
In Ontario, it would mean link-ups for Woodbine, Fort Erie and Greenwood, which are three typical examples. The only racing dates in the months of August in Ontario are held at the Fort Erie race track. Fort Erie, with its flowers and lawns, is one of the most beautiful race tracks in North America.
I am pleased with this legislation because it will give the Fort Erie track a real opportunity to survive as a viable race track with all of the employment it provides in the Fort Erie area. Under inter-track betting during the month of August, the Ontario Jockey Club may, if it so decides, open a portion of the clubhouse at Woodbine or at Greenwood where racing will not be taking place in the afternoon but where the racing fans of Toronto may then be able to go to watch the races being run in Fort Erie on large-screen television and also be able to bet on those races. Of course, this means considerably more employment in the Toronto area as additional staff will be required to operate those tracks.
It is also a considerable benefit to those who are most interested in the racing game. I might add that it also means that Blue Bonnet in the Province of Quebec as well as other tracks in that province will now survive. We should be thankful for that because Blue Bonnet is too much of an institution in Quebec to be turned into a shopping centre.
I believe that the statistics on racing would be shocking to many people who do not understand just how large an industry it is. I will relate a number of figures just for the province of British Columbia alone to indicate to my constituents what we are talking about. There are 3,000 thoroughbred and standard-bred breeders in Canada. There are 450 breeders in British

June 11, 1982
Criminal Code
Columbia. There are 10,000 racehorse owners in Canada, including 900 in British Columbia. There are over 8,000 people employed in the racing industry in British Columbia, of which some are part-time employees. Over 40,000 people in Canada are employed in racing.
In British Columbia alone the thoroughbred breeders have over $100 million invested in land, buildings, equipment and livestock. The total thoroughbred investment exceeds $300 million in British Columbia. Total purchases in British Columbia'in 1981 for standardbreds, and thoroughbreds was $11.1 million. The 1981 national total was $107.8 million. Most of this money goes to the agricultural industry in the form of wages and purchases of supplies.
What about wagers? How much money is really involved? British Columbia harness racing wagering was $62.7 million. British Columbia thoroughbred racing wagering was $142,719,000. Total wagering in the Province of British Columbia was $205,421,528. In 1981, B.C. racing generated just over $14 million in direct wagering taxes for the B.C. government. The national total, I might add, for all provincial governments was $129 million. If only the provincial governments could be made to understand that if they would reduce the take-out, they would undoubtedly make more money. Anywhere that this has been done has resulted in more revenue for provincial governments rather than less. The latest example in recent years is British Columbia itself, where the take-out of the individual dollars bet was once 22 per cent, but when it was dropped to 18.2 per cent, guess what happened? The provincial government made considerably more money. The same thing happened in New York state, as well as in other jurisdictions.
It is unfortunate that provincial politicians allow greed to get in the way of what makes more sense in terms of raising revenue for themselves. The fairer the break to the bettor, the more revenue that results. Referring to attendance in British Columbia, 468,804 attended B.C. harness racing last year. B.C. thoroughbred attendance was 1,085,858. There is an interesting sidelight in those figures, and that is the fact that this attendance total is in fact larger than the combined totals for attendance at all Vancouver Canuck hockey games, B.C. Lions football games, Whitecap soccer games and the Canadians baseball team. Put them all together and racing in still the largest sport, not only in my province, but also in North America.
I would like to mention a few Canadian racing statistics to emphasize the point again as to how important this legislation is to an industry which has been hurting. The total Canadian attendance at racetracks in 1981 was 14,001,942. This total was greater than the total attendance at all National Hockey League games, Canadian Football League games, North American Soccer League games and all professional baseball games. Put them all together and the total does not equal the attendance at racetracks.
Do hon. members know what is the largest single sporting event, if not in the world, certainly in North America? It is the
Kentucky Derby, in a city of 300,000 named Louisville, Kentucky. At that track 140,000 people paid attendance for the one race. On the particular day this year, $5 million was bet through the mutuels at the race track on one race. Over $11 million was bet for the one day at Churchill Downs.
What is the amount of money that was bet on races in Canada in 1981? It was $1,709,659,905. In terms of its effect on the tourist industry in Canada, what does racing do? Manitoba is the only province in which statistics are kept. In 1981, $9 million was generated in spending by tourists coming into the province for the horse races at Assiniboine Downs in Winnipeg. Most of these tourists came from North Dakota and Minnesota. That amount of $9 million was generated because of a track well over 60 miles from the border. Consider the impact on our tourism of the Fort Erie racetrack across the river from the city of Buffalo, or of Exhibition Park in Vancouver, less than 20 miles from the Washington state border. The same applies to other tracks across the country which are close to an American audience.
I think that if we are really to understand this legislation and its importance, we must talk about some of the people involved in this game and some of the skills which are an absolutely vital necessity for the successful conduct of a race meeting. I am thinking of people like Grubb and Carberry on the prairies, Doug Reid in Vancouver and Darryl Wells here, men who could memorize 12 horses by their colours in less than three minutes and then accurately call a race being run, with very seldom a mistake. I am thinking of the jockeys who are, without a doubt, the highest paid athletes in the world, who take their lives in their hands several times a day when climbing on the backs of 1200-pound horses. These jockeys weigh 115 pounds. Imagine a 115-pound jockey on a 1200-pound horse which is supported by very thin and fragile legs, going at a speed of 40 miles an hour.
Consider the trainers, the crafty ones. Frank Christian in British Columbia is an example. He raised his horses in the Okanagan Valley. Every spring he would bring a few of them onto the racetrack. They would win a few races, he would sell his horses, and they would be gone by the end of June. Consider British Columbia's Sonny O'Connell, president of the Horsemen's Association of British Columbia, who once told me that if he had spent as much time with the bible as he had with the racing form, he would be a saint today! These are some of the people involved in racing.
Consider George Cummins who likes nothing better on the west coast than to pick up a horse and keep running it against better and better stock, winning all the way. Or take Frank Passero, for example, here in Ontario, who can claim another man's horse the race before it will win. Or a man named Tammaro, at Woodbine who can talk to two-year-olds, I believe.
Look at the working executives in this industry across the land, such as Jack Kenney, Irv Klugman in Ontario and Merv Peters in Vancouver, who run and work with a million problems every day. Bill Veeck, who is more well known for baseball, once ran Suffolk Downs in Boston for a while. He
June 11, 1982

wrote one of the funniest, most enjoyable books about racetracks that anyone could read called "Twenty Tons a Day", and hon. members know to which he refers.
Take a look at the men with the finances and their love of racing who have provided enjoyment for so many millions of people over the years. Consider Jack Diamond from British Columbia, who almost single-handedly resurrected racing on the lower mainland. Consider Charles Taylor and what he has done with Winfields Farms and the breeding industry and racing in Ontario. Consider Jean-Louis Levesque of Quebec and the famous Speers family on the prairies. These dedicated men have done a great deal, and this government has brought in a bill to help continue the good work.
Then there are the owners of the racehorses as well, men of vanity who have found their relaxation and pleasure in horse racing. Consider a man like Bill Kocken on the west coast who literally flew all night and all day to get to Vancouver from the Arctic because he had a little two-year-old running in a race that night which he simply had to see. Well, he got there, and his horse did, too. We may hear more of Vance's Bay. As Jim Coleman has stated, "A rich man needs two things, a worry and a hobby, and he can solve both needs by buying a race horse."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Consider Hunky Bill Konyk of the west coast, the owner of a successful chain of restaurants. He finds his relaxation by owning his own horses. They do not often win, but that is where a lot of the restaurant profits go.
My Dad once became involved in owning a race horse. He went to Polo Park in the middle thirties and I suspect he had had a drink or two; but anyway, at the end of the day he owned a racehorse. It took him several months to realize what had happened to him, before he could sell the racehorse, and he gave me some advice on that occasion. It was one of those treasured maxims of a father to a son. He said, "Son, if 1 have learned one thing, I hope you learn it easier, and that is, never own anything that eats!"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Finally, the individual racing fan is the most maligned person in the world. He is abused, dishonoured and ridiculed by an ignorant and uninformed public. Yet he is the salt of the earth, Mr. Speaker.
Let me mention, to his embarrassment I am sure, Desmond Kimmitt, who is known as the punting priest in British Columbia. Besides running a major parish in West Vancouver he serves on the B.C. Racing Commission. He grew up in the horse country in Ireland and now can be found at the racetrack whenever he can find the time.
Then there is a Chinese family of father, mother and a couple of children who for years have gone to the racetrack every day. Jack Short, who is a legend in himself having spent 44 years announcing races on the west coast, told me that he
Criminal Code
once asked his father if he made any money going to the track day after day, season after season. The father answered that he made money on occasion but on other occasions he would lose. He had worked it out that for the family to go to the racetrack as often as they did cost him about $3,000 per year. Short mentioned that they could take holidays for that money, but the father pointed out that it was very easy to spend $3,000 on a holiday within two weeks and that his family could have about 100 holidays every year by going to the racetrack.
Those are some typical fans, the type of people that you run into at race tracks. The president of an insurance company and the swamper in an office building are equal when they pick up a Racing Form to determine the winner of a race. Often the swamper can prove wiser than the president. That is part of the appeal.
I know people who would swim a raging river to see a good horse race but could not care less about making a bet. There are more thrills, there is more emotion, more enjoyment for the recreational dollar to be found at the racetrack than anywhere else. It is the most participatory of spectator sports. No one should disdain the $2 bettor; he is to be envied. A $2 bettor will tell you that you must always remember that the less you bet, the more you lose when you win! Damon Runyon made a statement to the effect that all horse players die poor. Any horse player knows that is not true. Even if it were, he forgot to add that all horse players die broke-but with a smile on their face, having found great joy in their recreation and hobby.
Jim Coleman, who is probably the best sportswriter Canada ever produced, wrote an autobiography called "Hoofprints on My Heart". I stole the line for the introduction to my speech. Without a doubt it is one of the funniest, most sympathetic, most understanding books about racing in Canada that has ever been written. Anyone who does not like racing and who took the time to read Jim Coleman's book will change his view.
Let me turn to the unfortunate side of racing, Mr. Speaker. When 1 say unfortunate, 1 mean the criminal element. 1 am referring now to bookies. I have some statistics which are fascinating. In June of 1981 in the city of Toronto, the average daily sale of the Racing Form was 88,000 copies; in the month of July it was 99,000 copies daily and in August it dropped somewhat. But the connection is this, Mr. Speaker: in June, 1981 when 88,000 copies of the Racing Form were sold daily, approximately 10,000 people attended Woodbine race track. Even assuming that everyone at the race track bought the Racing Form, even though the actual figures indicate that each Racing Form serves 1.5 persons, that still leaves 78,000 in the hands of people who did not go to the track. In the month of July over 80,000 Racing Form were sold daily at $1.75 each to people who did not go to the track. 1 do not think it takes a mental giant to figure out that if someone paid $1.75 for a Racing Form and did not go to the track, there was some other way he could make a wager. The bookmaking industry is obviously flourishing in Toronto.

June 11, 1982
Criminal Code
One thing that this bill will correct is this. During the month of August when racing does not take place in Toronto and the horses are at Fort Erie, which averages 5,000 to 8,000 people per day, still 41,000 copies of the Racing Form are sold in Toronto. Surely with telephone betting, with inter-track betting and the big screen, some of those 30,000 people who are now contributing to the welfare of the underground and the scoundrels who are bookies will instead place their bets honestly. This bill is a blow to bookies, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to quote a statement made by Mr. Don Winter-ton, the former chief of police of the city of Vancouver. He stated:
I have reviewed the general regulations which were proposed for telephone account betting, and feel they will be a help in controlling illegal bookmaking activities as they apply to horse racing. It has been my experience that most people when provided with a legal alternative to an illegal activity, will choose the legal avenue. Consequently, I would expect that telephone account wagering could significantly reduce illegal bookmaking on horse racing, thus diverting revenue from the underworld to the racing industry and to provincial governments.
I am fully supported in this matter by Harold Adamson, former chief of police of metropolitan Toronto.
That is what the former chief of police thinks.
If we are to eliminate the illegal bookies totally and drive them out of business, the next stage must also be contemplated by government if only to allow the provinces to decide for themselves. The Government of Ontario is in favour of offtrack betting and would introduce it. That is the next stage. Off-track betting must come and it will remove the leech of the bookmaker from legitimate racing. The bookie contributes nothing to the support of racing or to provincial revenues, but off-track wagering could contribute substantially to provincial revenues.
Is there any real reason in this day and age why people of this country should not be allowed to make a small wager on the Kentucky Derby, the Japanese Cup, the Queen's Plate, the British Columbia Derby, the Arlington Million, the Longacres mile or a number of races in Europe? Those events could be brought in by television, although the regulations proposed by the Minister of Agriculture do not permit it at this time. Hopefully he and his officials will see the light and realize that it is good for the sport to have maximum exposure of some of the finest horses to be seen in the world.
Let us turn to something else. Let us turn to the major danger facing racing and one of the main reasons this legislation was eventually brought about. I refer to the despicable question of lotteries. Let me go over some of our lotteries and give some indication of what the individual person is up against. Super Loto, $10 per ticket; the top prize, $1 million; the odds, 800,000 to one. The Provincial lottery, the top prize, $500,000; the odds 800,000 to one. Wintario, for a dollar, the top prize, $100,000; the odds, one million to one. Lottario, for $1 and up; the top prize fluctuates weekly; the odds on winning are 3.2 million to one. The Cash for Life lottery, for the $2 ticket, the top prize $50,000 per year for life, taxable, or $300,000 lump sum, non-taxable; the odds, 1.4 million to one.
The Pot of Gold lottery, a $2 ticket, the top prize $100,000; the odds one million to one.
Let us deal with the newest little gimmick, Loto 6/49. If you think you are lucky, Mr. Speaker, really lucky, here is your chance to prove it. With odds of 13 million to one, you can risk a buck to win a million in Canada's latest lottery. Loto 6/49 was introduced on June 4 of this year. It is similar to Lottario, except that the odds are longer and the winnings bigger. One person in 3.2 million wins Lottario's average jackpot of $300,000 per week. Loto 6/49 will offer a million dollar jackpot after a year.
Forty-five cents of every dollar taken in goes to prizes, on average, in all of the lotteries. Let me contrast those figures with a couple of things out of the horse racing world, for those who wish to gamble rather than intelligently handicap and speculate on horse races. It is 3.2 million to one for an average jackpot, top prize $300,000. In the Pick 6 in Vancouver, in the Pick 6 at Woodbine, there have already been pots of $300,000, and all you have to do is pick the six consecutive winners of six races. Now, compared with 3.2 million to one odds, it is almost lead-pipe cinch. You have only 10 or 12 horses in each one of the races. You have only to pick one from each, so you might say 12 times one times six, and sure, the odds are that you have a chance; also you have a good opportunity to use your intelligence in determining what is taking place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Now, aside from the jackpots, in this new one, Loto 6/49, players can win cash prizes of $10 weekly for matching three numbers. Shared cash prizes, determined on a pool basis, will be given for matching four and five numbers as well. Now, let us get right down to the basic $10. The chance of winning any prize is estimated at one in 53. You could get better odds on a long shot at a race track than that, for better odds and far more for your $2. Lotteries really have drained off a lot of recreational dollars. It is a system and a despicable thing which gives people dreams, but if they would only look at the 3.2 million to one odds!
I had the occasion to draw a lottery once and nothing brought it home to me as much as that. It was for $100,000. I went into this room. There was a 20-foot wall which was filled with shoe boxes. I mean that the wall was filled, column after column after column, from the floor to the ceiling. The first thing we did in picking this winner was to spin a little wheel and pick out a number. That gave us row of boxes No. 15. So we went over to the fifteenth row and we knew the winner was going to come from that fifteenth row. Then we spun the numbers again and came up with the number nine. Then we counted down nine and pulled out that one box and opened it. In that box there were 1,000 individual tickets. My function then was to take a knife and stick it into that box somewhere and they would remove a ticket. We did that and someone won $100,000. But I think anyone who has paid money for one of those lottery tickets, if they could have seen that wall, if they could have seen the fantastic odds against them, would have
June II, 1982

felt much better about placing $2 in a horse race where at least at worst they get a ten-to-one chance of winning something.
There are several things that have yet to be done for the benefit of racing in this country. Whether our present Minister of Agriculture has the intestinal fortitude to do it or not I seriously doubt. One of them is to allow the provinces to decide for themselves whether they want off-track betting. Another one is to attempt to persuade them, and to provide statistics in support, that the government's share must be reduced and that they will take less out in order to gain more money.


Eugene Whelan: Which government, this government?


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: All governments.


Eugene Whelan: It is 0.6 per cent to the federal government.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: It is 0.6 per cent to the federal government, says the Minister of Agriculture. What he did not report was the surplus that the government keeps from that 0.6 per cent, to the detriment of the individual bettor across Canada.
The implications for racing with this new legislation, which I fully approve of, are substantial. It is a good move this government has made and 1 am pleased that they have done it.
As a final word, Winston Churchill in his declining years was once asked by a reporter, if he had to live his life over again, what would he change, what would he have done differently? After much thought, his statement was: "I wish 1 had bet more on the black at Monte Carlo!" I suspect that if I am asked that same question in my declining years, my answer would be: "I wish I had found more time to spend at race tracks!"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I have a few more brief comments, but because of the nature of them I wonder if we might call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If that is agreed, it being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) had the floor, but the chair has been advised that there may be a point of order with respect to last night's proceedings.
Point of Order-Mr. MacKay POINT OF ORDER
MR. MacKAY-BILL C-108-REQUESTED CHANGE IN RECORDING OF VOTE


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is very brief. It has to do with the vote I registered last evening with respect to Bill C-108. Due to some confusion or juxtaposition of my seat at the time the vote was taken, the vote I cast was wrongly ascribed. I wish to be on record as having voted for Bill C-108-with the government in this instance-and I request that the record be changed. If it requires a motion to accomplish this, I would be pleased to put a motion; but if that is not required, I would just like to have this on the record, and I have already spoken to Journals about it.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, if it is required to seek unanimous consent for the purpose of reverting to motions to present a motion which would clarify the anomaly referred to by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), I as well would be quite prepared either to move or to second that motion.
In any event, the point of order is to clarify any anomaly at the time of the taking of the vote last night. At the conclusion of the taking of the votes from the side opposite and when the last vote had been recorded, both the hon. member for Central Nova and 1 rose with the intent and purpose of supporting the bill. As 1 pointed out on a brief question of privilege last night, the bill before us at that point did contain a matter of importance and urgency to maritime Canada. It is incumbent on me to join with the hon. member for Central Nova and to inquire about whatever the proper procedure is to remove any anomaly with respect to the recording of that vote last night. It was my intention-and it remains my intention-to support the content of Bill C-108 at third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) have both been so kind as to advise the Chair of their intention. Of course, being in the chair last night, I was also aware of the events in relation to the vote. I think probably the best way to do this is to seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the hon. member for Central Nova and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East recorded as having voted in favour of Bill C-108 last night. That constitutes a correction of the House of Commons Debates record, Hansard, and I presume there would be no difficulty for hon. members throughout the House in that regard. However, it is procedurally necessary to seek the unanimous consent of the House to make that change in Hansard. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 11, 1982
Criminal Code CRIMINAL CODE


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan (for Mr. Chretien) that Bill C-117, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, in checking the blues I see there is one thing I forgot to include in the statistics, particularly when 1 was comparing lotteries with racetracks. That is that the average lottery returns approximately 45 cents on the dollar to those who buy lottery tickets. I do not believe there is a racetack in Canada where it is not over 80 cents on the dollar. I want that on the record to indicate my total displeasure with the proliferation of lotteries which seems to be taking place to the detriment of my favourite sport.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that 1 thought a long time about whether or not I would discuss the matters I am going to discuss now. I came to the conclusion that it was probably better if I did as someone who has enjoyed racing most of his life. That, Mr. Speaker, is the other side of racing. I personally believe I have seen the odd housewife who has lost the week's grocery money at a racetrack and is going home to face an irate husband.
A personal story: a number of years ago an older man who knew that I knew something about racing came to see me and informed me that he had inherited $8,000, which was his total savings at the time, and that in the course of a three-month period he had managed to lose all but $50 through ever-increasing bets and in ever-increasing desperation. He wanted me to do two things. One, tell the racetrack in hopes that they might return his money. Of course, I had to explain very carefully that a racetrack only provides the means to bet and it was something that could not be done. Second, he wanted me, of all things, to give him the name of the winning horse in a race so that he could bet his last $50 and start on the road to recovery. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have found over a lifetime that the minute I tout someone on a horse, that is the kiss of death! Believe me, if Seattle Slew were running a race against a billy goat and I told someone to bet on the horse, I am convinced that somehow or other the billy goat would win the race! So I did not do that either.
The question that bothered me, Mr. Speaker, and one I have thought a great deal about over the years, is what responsibility does the racing industry have to those who cannot look after themselves. Really, I do not believe there is an answer. Do you stop gambling on horses because of the very few that get themselves in trouble? Of course, there are many rationalizations such as, if it were not that, it would be something else, and I suspect that is true. No racetrack wants or encourages people to risk more than they can afford. The track does not have the climate of a Nevada casino. It is a place where people go to have a thoroughly good time and not lose too much. If people lost more than they could afford, the game would soon
stop because it was destroying people. But there is the odd person this does happen to and I hope I do not do a disservice, whether to myself, the industry or this House, by suggesting that on the same basis, because automobile accidents kill people, we should do away with the automobile. 1 finally came to the rationalization that the joy this sport has for literally millions of people, the enjoyment people in and out of the industry get from it, far outweighs the odd person-and it does not happen that often-who cannot control themselves and are hurt severely by the fact that they get carried away at a race track.
I wanted to mention that because I know there are many religious people in Canada who feel it is sinful to gamble. I suggest to them it is sinful to buy a lottery ticket or play bingo in church basements, that those are sins of equal magnitude, in the moral sense, to that of placing a wager at a racetrack. It is very simple for anyone to buy a racing form which contains more information about horses than perhaps any other publication in the world. It makes The Sporting Life published in England look like a rank amateur in terms of information on horse flesh. If a person does that, then it is an intellectual game of matching their wits, intelligence and ability in comparing horses with everyone else at the racetrack. As Will Rogers said, what makes a horserace is a difference of opinion, and that you find in substantial amounts at any race meeting.
The moral issue involved in racing is something which has been with us from the beginning and always will be with us. When you look at the history of racing, going back 3,500 years, it is obvious that it is an old and honoured entertainment medium-sport if you will, but entertainment as well. Certainly an afternoon in the sun watching horses run is far superior, to my mind at least, to sitting in a dark theatre watching flickering shadows on a screen.
I wanted to speak on the moral aspects of this issue for the simple reason that I would sincerely hope we never reach a time where we deny pleasure to so many because the odd person will hurt himself or herself. Note that the hurt is self-inflicted and they are not encouraged to continue. In fact, anyone in the industry would say: "Come and have a good time but do not bet too much." But of course, someone does periodically. To those people we offer our sympathy and understanding, but at the same time they did it to themselves and hopefully most of them realize it.
I am pleased with this legislation, I certainly intend to vote for it, and I think having covered that one small point 1 will conclude my remarks.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any great length on this bill, but I must confess that when I do arrive at my conclusion it will not be quite the same as the one arrived at by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook).
At the beginning I do want to say that what the hon. member said was both entertaining and informative. I thought that
June 11, 1982

his presentation on behalf of the industry was very worthwhile.
1 have rarely heard anyone speak as fondly of a sport as did the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby both this morning and again this afternoon. As 1 listened to him speak I came to the conclusion that perhaps he thought the bill was brought into the House for the purpose of banning horse racing. He pleaded eloquently for its continuation. Although 1 have no particular interest in horse racing at all other than from a purely spectator point of view, I do, however, what to make a few comments on it.
What we are talking about really is extending the opportunity for people to bet without going to the track. We are calling it by the interesting phrase "inter-track betting". It is, in fact, off-track betting. It is off-track betting because it will be possible for a person to go to a track where there is absolutely no horse racing taking place, go to a wicket and place a bet without ever being involved in either seeing or enjoying the event. In fact, it will even be possible-if I understand it correctly, and I will eagerly await the minister's correction if 1 am not reading the bill accurately-for an individual to place his or her bet by telephone. In all fairness, I must say that is off-track betting. That is not inter-track betting. Inter-track betting is where you go to a track to watch the races and while you are at the pari-mutuel window, as a result of knowledge you have about a race going on at another track, you want to place an additional bet on a horse or on a number of horses that are running at the same time at another place.
I want to suggest to the minister that it is entirely possible, if you read this legislation and think about it, that rather than being beneficial in terms of encouraging the maintenance of racing at those tracks which are currently undergoing financial difficulty, this bill may well discourage people who otherwise may have gone to the likes of Fort Erie from Toronto. These people would have paid admission, purchased their lunch, would have paid to park their vehicle and would have contributed to the general maintenance of that track other than in a betting sense. It is now possible under this legislation for the tracks to run and to operate without anyone ever going to see the races.
I say to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby that that surely flies in the face of everything he has been speaking about. That surely is not encouraging the sport to flourish. That is not encouraging horse racing as a spectator sport. What we are doing today, and let us make no mistake about it, is facilitating the desire of those who bet on horse racing to bet in any way they want without having to go to the track. 1 must confess that does not appeal to me. I do not happen to think that we should be seeking new ways to encourage people to bet money. I do not think that is a particularly useful exercise.


Mr. Lapierre:: That is not your business.


Ian Deans: It is my business. If it were not my business, this bill would not be before the House of Commons. 1 suggest to the hon. member that his interjection is both inappropriate and
Criminal Code
inaccurate. If it were not my business, the bill would not be here. Therefore, it is my business.
1 think this legislation will ultimately have the opposite effect which the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby in all good faith indicated was his desire and his hope. I think it will undermine the sport. I do not think it will undermine the betting angle. In fact, I think it may well encourage more people to risk their pay cheques, like the lady about whom he spoke. It may well encourage people to risk their pay cheques because they no longer have to find the wherewithal to get to the track.
The next step to this is clear. The Jockey Club in Ontario, if you want to speak of Ontario, will say that not only is it inconvenient for people to have to go all the way to the track where the race is being run, but it is a bit inconvenient for them to have to go to the track in their own municipality. We do not have racetracks in every municipality. In order to encourage people to take part in this sport of horse racing, maybe it, the Jockey Club, should be given the opportunity to open an adjunct to the track-maybe one in every small town which will be called part of the track-to be run by the Jockey Club. That would enable everyone to have access to this marvellous sport. But what it will also do is enable everyone to have access to the betting operation which has nothing at all to do with the sport itself.
I have serious reservations about this legislation. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby. in setting out the financial condition that is being enjoyed by the majority of the horse racing fraternity, indicated quite clearly that there are now, and have been for years, substantial sums of money going into horse racing. He pointed out that more people attend horse races than attend any other sport. On balance, the sport is in reasonably good shape. I am not suggesting that it might not have the urge or the need to improve its financial position, but at the moment it is certainly in reasonably good shape.
The hon. member pointed out that last year in Canada $1.7 billion was placed on bets. With some pride, and I can say with some justifiable pride, the hon. member, who has spent his entire life at the racetrack or thereabouts, told us that about 14 million people have attended horse races. He is in this House a great deal and I do not know how he gets to the racetrack all the time. Be that as it may, the industry seems to be flourishing quite nicely. Therefore, why do we want to discourage those people from going to the horse races? Why do we want to make it unnecessary for them to go? Why do we want to open this up so that whatever number of people who would go to the racetrack, only half of them will now go? Instead of going to the track they will simply nip down to the corner and place their wager. Why would we want to do that? It seems to me that this bill is undermining the very soul of the industry that it is intended to support.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It's energy saving.


Ian Deans: My colleague who does marvellous research on things such as this has brought to my attention a letter sent by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). It concerns inter-

June 11, 1982
Criminal Code
track betting. It states that if Greenwood opens its pari-mutuel system in order to bet on races at another track, it is not expected to generate nearly the attendance figures realized at racing events. Perhaps the minister will find it in his heart to answer, when given the opportunity, the following question: Is it not reasonable to assume that people who go to race tracks for the purpose of placing bets and enjoying racing, but who have to travel some 50 or 100 miles in order to do so, will choose simply to go down to the closed neighbourhood track or to telephone the local track to place their bets? Of course attendance will be detrimentally affected by the legislation, and the end result will be a further deterioration, as the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby indicated, of a fairly progressive, reasonably lucrative and well-run operation. It will be a further deterioration of the industry, and we will be back here in the not too distant future looking for other ways to get more money to compensate for the loss in attendance, and therefore the loss of revenue to people dependent upon race tracks for their livelihood.
I must confess that I am having difficulty with this bill. I am trying, and I know the minister realizes it. It is difficult for me to bring myself to vote against this legislation, given the priority the government has placed upon it. It is difficult, but I think I might be forced into it.


Mr. Young:: I might join you.


Ian Deans: The hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young) indicates that he may even join me, because he is as worried about it as I am.
1 am sure Mr. Speaker is wondering why we are dealing with this matter today. Why is the government attempting to undermine the stability of racing in Canada with this legislation, given that there are many other important matters with which we could be dealing, such as unemployment? Imagine what we might have been able to do in an afternoon discussing the major unemployment problems confronting people from coast to coast in the country.


An hon. Member:: This won't cost jobs.


Ian Deans: The hon. member whose riding I cannot recall at the moment, who is sitting over there in the back where she ought to be, is interjecting and saying that there will be no loss of jobs. I suggest to her that there will be a loss of jobs at the tracks as a result of this piece of legislation. It will make it unnecessary for as many people to work at the tracks as were needed prior to its implementation. I am absolutely positive- and only the future will bear me out-that as a result of this legislation a deterioration in the crowds at the tracks will inevitably occur.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Ian Deans: What is out of order? I am entitled to speak to the bill.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Would the hon. member accept a point of clarification?


Ian Deans: No. I will be happy to accept it when I am finished. Clarification is not something one offers, and on top of that, obviously it was not a point of order.
I do not doubt for one moment that the crowds will dwindle away as the punters make their bets by telephone. Local tracks will only require people to relay the bets. There will be a loss of direct employment, such as the people who sell at concessions or work at the kinds of employment which go with crowds in attendance. I think the legislation is self-defeating. In fact, I was really surprised when I listened to the hon. member that he himself did not come to that conclusion.
Then, of course, there are all the other various arguments. What next, I say? The hon. member said that there has been horse racing since there have been domestic horses and that as a result there has been betting of one kind or another since the inception of horse racing. That is not really a good argument, nevertheless. Many things have been in existence since the beginning of time that we do not condone or support, so I can hardly think that that argument is persuasive.
Then he went on to explain, as did the minister, that the racing industry needs this legislation. I suppose the same argument could be used by those who run football teams in Canada. For example, Montreal lost substantial sums of money over two or three seasons. Its football team may feel that it would be helpful to have pari-mutuel betting on football so that it could derive some revenue from the betting which takes place to offset its losses. Then there are the various hockey teams across the country which are not really making it at the gate. They might feel that pari-mutuel betting on hockey games would be useful.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Wait until the next bill.


Ian Deans: This is why I am talking about it. That is exactly why. The hon. member is a good straight man. I need him, I really do. Then there are soccer teams which are barely ekeing out a living. I am sure they would like to have the benefit of pari-mutuel betting. We could have it at the local ball diamond. If it is baseball, one would nip down to the local ball diamond, go to the concession and place a wager on the ball game. One might not bet on the game which is being played at the time-and there might not even be a game taking place-but on some other game which is being played in some other part of the country or some other part of the world. It could be argued that this would really be helpful and that it would be one way for them to make up their losses. The hon. member opposite who interjected said that I should wait for the next bill. That is exactly what worries me.
1 know Mr. Speaker will be interested in what I am about to say, and that is that I do not like the drift toward more and more legalized gambling. I am no moralist, but 1 do not like the drift which is taking place. I did not like it when I was a member of the Ontario legislature and we began with-what was the name of it?
June 11, 1982


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Wintario.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Wintario. At that time I said that it was the thin edge of the wedge. Incidentally, it was to be used for research, for medical care, and for all those marvellous things which the world was being denied.


Mr. Collenette:: It was a Tory pork barrel.


Ian Deans: The hon. member opposite says that it was a Tory pork barrel. Perhaps that is an unfair description of it, but it is not that wrong.
This piece of legislation further encourages people to gamble. It does not encourage them to attend horse racing, to enjoy the sport, or to participate in it in any way. It encourages them to gamble, that is all. Within days of the passage of this legislation we will be asked to approve further legislation to encourage people to gamble even more. If that is the level to which the government has sunk, if that is the level of administration which we have in the country, if that is the sense of priority of the government-and given the serious economic problems of the day, I say, as many have said over the last number of months, that the government has been in office too long-then it has lost touch with reality. It is no longer responding to what affects average families in every community across the land.
There are two million people unemployed today, and industry after industry is closing its doors. Industry is operating at 50 per cent of its capacity. People are looking for homes and cannot find them. People are paying mortgages at 19.75 per cent. People owe more on their homes than their homes are worth.
This legislation is before us at a time when the government is unable to find money to sustain medical care at a level that is acceptable across the country. Its priority seems to be to open up gambling a little wider in order that more people can be trapped and pulled into the net. I find it very difficult to see my way clear to support this legislation in the face of those other matters. I do not want to become emotional about the question and if everything else was accomplished which needs to be accomplished in this country I might consider this legislation even worthy of consideration. However, under the current prevailing conditions I simply cannot agree with it.
I cannot help but feel that we are being conned somewhere along the line. I want to join with the hon. member and say with all sincerity that I find no problem in encouraging people to go and watch horse races or to see football, tennis or whatever sporting or artistic event they may find enjoyable. I believe that people do not have enough opportunities to seek release from the pressures which have been brought upon them as a result of the government's economic and social policies. But it remains unclear to me how the passage of this piece of legislation will give people that enjoyment.
It has often been said that lotteries and betting in general are, in fact, a tax on the poor. That statement is as true today as it was when it was first made. It is the dream of sudden
Criminal Code
wealth. I found the example given by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby about the odds of winning lotteries most enlightening. It is quite clear that lotteries are a tax because the chance of winning any of those lotteries is virtually non-existent. It is true that someone wins, but the odds are almost impossible.
It is equally true that if the necessity to go to the event itself is removed, then all that has been accomplished is the creation of another lottery. Instead of horse racing being a sport, it will have been turned into another lottery where a person can run down to an off track betting office or phone in to put his bet on the line for a win, place or show or perhaps a triacta. In effect, it is another attempt to extract additional money from the public. A substantial amount of revenue that comes from betting goes to the government and God only knows for what it will be used. I certainly do not know and I am sure the minister could not explain it. It goes into the general revenue, in any event.
The benefit which flows to individual farmers who sell, grow or provide any of the necessities for the breeding or maintaining of horses is not enhanced one iota by this piece of legislation, even though those supplies are substantial.
I wish 1 could see the merit of this legislation. I am always reluctant to oppose ideas. I would like to be positive and in favour of the matter but the merit of it escapes me.
I talked to my colleague who will undoubtedly raise these matters. He represents an area in Beaches which has a race track. He will talk about the problems attendant upon that track and its surrounding area.
As I have said, I am trying to understand it but I cannot see how this bill can be supported. Perhaps the minister would care to enter the debate again. I would be happy to give him that opportunity because I would like to hear once more, without going into the details of horse racing or its merit as a sport, why we want to encourage betting or gambling. What is the merit of that? Frankly, it escapes me and I do not understand it. Unless a subsequent speaker is able to convince me, I frankly do not feel that I could inflict the necessity upon my colleagues even to consider voting for this piece of legislation. I believe that we must draw the line somewhere.
If it is true that certain tracks are in financial difficulty, it may be a reflection of the public's sense of value of horse racing more than anything else. It may be the attitude of the Canadian public toward the general sport of horse racing. If that is so, it cannot be claimed that if the public is not supporting it more people are needed to bet in order for tracks to continue operating. I look forward to hearing the answer because I must say to the minister, who is a very sensitive soul at the best of times, that I am sure that deep down below his green hat he has views about the concerns I have raised.
I ask him to show me how the farmer will benefit from this legislation. If the sport is to become more desirable within society and more appealing to people as a sport or form of entertainment-regardless of betting-then show me how this

June 11, 1982
Criminal Code
can be accomplished by opening up betting even wider than it is today. Show me how this can be done by discouraging people from attending the event itself. How can you encourage the development of a spectator sport if you encourage people not to go to it? Does that not strike the minister as being odd? It certainly strikes me as being odd. Therefore, 1 am unable to support the bill.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Is there time for the hon. member to answer one question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Collenette):: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby wishes to ask a question. This requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: The original part of the hon. member's speech dealt with the fact that people will stop going to race tracks since they would be able to make a bet by telephone. In the state of New York there are off-track betting shops on practically every street corner throughout the cities in that state, yet attendance at New York race tracks has dropped insignificantly as a result. How does the hon. member explain his position with those facts staring him in the face?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am delighted to have given the hon. member the opportunity to ask a question. He has answered the question himself. It is true that if you provide alternative methods for betting then fewer people go to the track. The hon. member has said so himself. There are fewer people attending the tracks in the state of New York than there were prior to the introduction of off-track betting. Therefore, I can only assume that, having answered the question himself, the hon. member feels no necessity to have me answer it for him.


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I will start my remarks by saying, firstly, that I do not know anything about horse racing, and then I will speak for 25 minutes!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Why I am discussing this matter is because 1 was raised by a grandfather who owned racehorses, and for as long as I can remember 1 have heard about horse racing. My in-laws, too, have been great fans of the sport for many years, but as I am a mother and a Member of Parliament, I do not have much time for it. I must say that I have been in close contact with that industry for over 25 years.
I just want to answer a few questions in the mind of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). For instance, he is quite interested in knowing whether less people would go to the track and whether there would be a loss of jobs at the track. The hon. member might know that the jobs we are discussing are not only those located at the track. For every one job at the track, there are three or four jobs related to that
industry outside the track. Of course, I am referring to the farms and those who train horses and all the related industries which make the necessary equipment. For instance, in one evening there are usually ten races with ten horses in each race, which means 100 horses for one single track. Considering the number of tracks in Canada, this means that many horses must be trained, which necessitates much investment. For those who are involved it is an industry, and for those who are attending it is mostly a sport.

Mr. Speaker, my grandfather was involved in this sport for several years in Berthierville, where up to a few years ago they still had a racetrack that operated on a regular basis almost year-round. Unfortunately, because of the economic situation, and despite government assistance, the racetrack had to close down.
Mr. Speaker, in my riding there is a racetrack which is worth over $10 million with the buildings and everything around it. The track has been closed for several years. We are talking about an industry that is losing money every year, not as far as the betting is concerned, but because racing is becoming more and more expensive. In fact, I think this bill will help the industry considerably, because at the present time, one of the problems is to have enough income to be able to afford good quality horses and trained staff to run the industry.
I do not think my colleague quite understands the fact that the bill will provide for inter-track betting. He seems to forget that First of all, we must have races, and with races, everything that is necessary to run them including equipment, horses, jockeys and trainers, and if all these elements are present, then the race will take place no matter where the bettor happens to be. More people will be involved in races, and I hope that thanks to modern telecommunications, some day races will also be shown on television. I do not see anything here that is against public morality, since this activity is very strictly regulated and controlled by the authorities of the various provincial and federal departments and agencies concerned.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel that we should realize there is all this "underground" money which never gets to the track, which is not converted into taxable wages, and in the final instance, we have millions of dollars circulating under the counter, which are not benefiting the Canadian economy but are benefiting an underground network, and are of no direct benefit to the industry. This money circulates in shady circles only and does not go directly to the owners and drivers and the entire racing industry. It is this money that we, as a government, want to bring back into legal channels. Will this create jobs? Yesterday, a number of mayors made statements on the subject, including the mayor of Quebec City, who said that probably more than 300 jobs in Quebec City would be saved thanks to this bill. If in Quebec City, which has 500,000 people and has had a racetrack for a number of years, municipal
June 11, 1982

authorities feel that 300 jobs will be saved, this bill adds up to several thousand jobs across Canada.
That is why it is a real pleasure for me to support this bill and 1 hope it will be passed by the House with the requisite speed, as agreed, so that money spent by Canadians on this type of recreation will be channelled to an industry that creates jobs, that will make it possible for farmers to make a decent living-an industry that formerly saw mostly American horses racing on Canadian tracks-and for Canadians to raise good quality horses and racing fans to see a good race.
Mr. Speaker, every year the summer Grand Prix is held at Blue Bonnet race track. Last week we celebrated the track's 75th anniversary. The statistics for the last few years show that a track like Blue Bonnet has been losing from 500 to
1,000	spectators each year, and 1 think that by allowing parimutuel betting and helping the industry, it will be possible to save several hundred jobs in the Montreal area alone. Some day, 1 hope it will be possible to open the Richelieu race track, which is in my riding, because it would provide a magnificent showplace for off-track betting. I can imagine the giant screens and people going to the wickets in the back placing their bets on the tracks in Toronto, Quebec City or Trois-Rivieres. The whole point of the exercise, which will be strictly controlled by government authorities, is to generate income for the industry and the Canadian public in general through the taxes paid by people working in the industry.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a correction, because earlier it was said that the federal government was getting a very generous slice of the tax levied at the track. Perhaps 1 should make it clear that out of every dollar generated at the racetrack, 81 cents goes back to the bettors, 7.5 cents goes to the provincial government, the owner of the horse receives 5.7 cents if he wins the purse, the track gets 4.4 cents and the federal government .06 cent. The bill makes it quite clear that the purpose is not to get rid of the federal government's budget deficit but to encourage this part of the private sector, and I feel that this type of privately-owned industry which is very well regulated and is able to operate very smoothly with private funds and government assistance, will benefit from a bill like the one before the House today. It will no longer be necessary to make telephone calls to bookies, since now calls will be made directly to the track. Perhaps 1 should explain. Telephone calls will be made, but the money will have to be deposited beforehand. People who enjoy betting on races will have to have the money. They cannot get credit to bet on a race. The money will have to be deposited in advance, and the bettor will use a code number to indicate the track and express his preferences.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any reason to worry about people running up debts. At every corner store, bettors can buy tickets for all kinds of lotteries, which, as my colleague so aptly said, offer the worst odds imaginable, namely, one to two or three million, and the proceeds do not go to any of our industries and are really indirect taxes in disguise. In this particular case, 1 feel that we are supporting a viable
Criminal Code
industry that will give thousands of Canadians-here again, I think this has been abundantly demonstrated by my colleague from North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook)-an industry that will open new horizons for Canadians and give people who want to have fun their money's worth. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that we must not forget the recreational side of our lives here in Canada. Of course, we can be serious. From my vantage point on this side of the House, I see that since the beginning of this session, we have passed quite a lot of very serious bills, which were still being debated yesterday evening. The energy bill was passed. I feel that if this bill is used to give thousands of racing enthusiasts a chance to get actively involved in this sport, we shall have opened new horizons for these people, and the industry in general will benefit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), the Chair has been advised that there may be a disposition to complete all stages of this bill before four o'clock this afternoon, at which time we would ordinarily go to the private members' hour. I wanted to indicate to the House what I have indicated privately, that in the event that the debate were to be completed prior to four o'clock, then, upon the understanding of hon. members, regardless of the time, the Chair would call it four o'clock and proceed with private members' hour. That is, as I understand, the wish of hon. members.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have an opportunity for a more lengthy speech on this very important piece of legislation but because of the pressures on the time of the House 1 shall try to keep my remarks short. I am sure the minister will appreciate my forbearance in that regard.
I am not an expert on the subject of this legislation but I find the pastime of horse racing a most enjoyable entertainment and a good way to meet friends for an afternoon.
I am very conscious of what the economic impact on the industry could be if we do not pass the legislation. As the minister has pointed out, the industry employs in excess of
40,000	people. 1 believe the proposal to increase the commission rates as well as to broaden the economic base of race tracks, particularly the small ones, will have a favourable effect upon all concerned-the tracks, the horsemen and the breeders. We should consider the legislation as a package, and I propose to examine it in that light.
Many small tracks are losing money today, and for some there is the threat that they may have to go out of business. That would have an important impact upon a number of communities. There are upwards of 100 tracks in Canada, so 100 communities would be affected if they went out of existence. That is what could happen if this legislation did not go through.

June 11, 1982
Criminal Code
As the last speaker pointed out, it is not just the racetracks but the people who supply the tracks, the restaurants and the breeders who are affected. Some participants in the industry have viewed inter-track betting as a threat to their wellbeing. I have been concerned with this aspect of the legislation because it is the smaller tracks that have expressed such concerns, and 1 think we have to be aware of them.
In assessing the legislation it occurred to me that the limited season and the limited market base of the smaller tracks will be expanded. The state of the economy today, with high interest rates and increased operating costs, could mean losses to many of the small tracks, so there is the danger that a number of them could be shut down. This legislation offers a very wise and practical way to approach that problem by allowing the tracks to make more use of their facilities by lengthening the season, thus spreading the fixed costs of a very expensive facility over a broader market base.
The bill does not authorize off-track betting. There are some people in the industry who would like to see that come about right away, but the minister has not chosen to introduce it. There are arguments pro and con but I do not propose to get into them at this time.
In order to take part in telephone betting that the minister introduced earlier as well as inter-track betting, the participant will have to go to the local track. For inter-track betting in particular, he has to use it in a very extensive way. He makes the bet there, he will probably have a meal and spend the evening there. This pastime has been popular in the United States. I understand that in the recent running of the Preak-ness, 20 tracks broadcast the race on their facilities. This allowed them access to one of the major races in the country. This can be done for a one-race event such as the Preakness or for a full racing program.
The smaller tracks are concerned about the impact upon them of this change in the legislation. I would have preferred the minister to be more forthcoming about the direction in which the legislation will be administered. There will have to be protection for the track and for the horsemen. I am sure the minister is aware of this and will probably express his views on it at third reading.
I understand that the minister is considering a limitation of the use of inter-track betting and that no track will participate unless it wants to and that no track can participate if it will infringe upon the operating market of a neighbouring facility. Geographical regions will have to be established. The way this is administered over the years will obviously be very important to the smaller tracks. There must be protection for the horsemen, and 1 hope the minister proposes to administer the legislation so that no track will be allowed to offer programs of inter-track betting to the detriment of the existing program of live racing.
This legislation offers some very important advantages. Obviously it means more revenue for the tracks. The smaller tracks can broaden their market base and show the top races in the country. That is a very important element in the better use of their facilities.
As I pointed out, there is a disadvantage to the degree that protection is not provided to the smaller tracks and horsemen. The economic position of these participants in the industry could be hindered rather than helped by the legislation. 1 hope the minister will respond on that point at third reading.
I think the government should consider actions such as this in a much broader way.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has on many occasions said we cannot do this or we cannot do that because it will cost us money, or that we cannot do it because it would cut across the United States policies or European policies which are undermining our programs here. This is an action which the government is proposing to take which is totally within our control and proposed to be taken in a way that will not cost the treasury any money. It may well result in increased revenues for the provinces, certainly it will result in increased revenues for the race tracks themselves, to the extent that they pay corporate and personal taxes. There will be increased revenues for the federal government and for the provincial governments.
This is why we have been saying, Mr. Speaker, that the government should be trying to identify a number of these things. We have identified the higher profile in so far as changing certain provisions of the budget and certain elements in the way the Foreign Investment Review Act is being administered is concerned. In the National Energy Program, changes there again do not necessarily cost the treasury money but can result in a much healthier economic environment. This is a smaller example, but a very important example to those people who are directly affected.
Let me comment briefly, Mr. Speaker, on the effect that this can have on a community. I was talking to my colleague from Erie (Mr. Fretz) in whose riding the Fort Erie race track is operated. I asked him what the impact would be because I had heard that there was a possibility that the Fort Erie track might be shut down. Unemployment in that part of the country is 15.6 per cent. There is less tourism this year because the cost of gasoline in Canada now is in excess of the cost of gasoline in the United States. People are not coming across the border.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Ahem, ahem.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I hear someone clearing his throat over there, and 1 would welcome a challenge from the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen). I will show him figures on the cost of gasoline as between Buffalo and Fort Erie, showing that gasoline is cheaper in Buffalo than it is in Fort Erie. I can show him that in the British Columbia marketplace, I can show him that in the Quebec or New Hampshire marketplace. That is what is happening in the energy market today.


Mr. Breau:: In Canadian dollars?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is in U.S. dollars, it is in comparable dollars, in comparable sized gallons. I say that for the benefit
June 11, 1982

of the member who does not understand what is happening in the energy industry. It is affecting directly a community in the country, Fort Erie and the Niagara Falls area. This is in addition to lay-offs which Inco has caused in Port Colborne, where several hundred people are affected by a strike, also in Fleet Industries, where 300 people have been laid off. So there is a very serious economic problem in that part of the country. If on top of that we layer a shutdown of a major employer such as the Fort Erie racetrack, we could have a very serious situation in what used to be a thriving part of our country.
I would also point out that the Fort Erie track in itself has lost a secondary market. That secondary market is Kitchener and Toronto and the communities around the major population centres of Toronto. The price of gasoline is causing people to think twice before they will drive 70, 80 or 90 miles. That market is shrinking, and that is having a direct impact on the attendance at the Fort Erie racetrack. That same problem, that same phenomenon is affecting a number of racetracks in the country today. Therefore, it is important that there be this legislation to allow those tracks access to the former market base that they had. To that extent it is important that we proceed with this legislation.
Moral considerations have been raised in the House. 1 have had these raised also with me in discussions I have had with my colleagues and with others outside the House. We cannot ignore the impact of the increase in any breakdown of the morality of our people. My colleague from North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) has outlined it very clearly. He said that there will be a greater degree of control on organized crime as a result of this legislation. He has pointed out the comments made by Don Winterton of the Race Track Security Canada organization as well as the comments of Mr. Harold Adamson, the security director of the Ontario Jockey Club. These gentlemen have a clear understanding, being former police chiefs themselves, of the impact of organized crime on betting. I always feel concerned when it appears that there could be an increase in betting as a result of some action taken by government. But this is not one of those situations where the direct result of this legislation will be an increase in betting. It will be a more controlled, more organized betting and more under the auspices of the government than has been the case in the past.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, as a humorous sidelight, that there is one little anomaly here, an ironic situation. About three or four years ago one of the exercise boys at the Ontario Jockey Club did hit the jackpot, that one in three million, or one in a million and a half chance of winning the million dollars. He did win. He got this money and he went directly to the president of the Ontario Jockey Club, took his advice on how to invest the money. He is now living in the same elite apartment building in my riding that the president of the Jockey Club used to live in.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Where is the president?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: So it is not all one way. There are some winners in the lottery game.
Criminal Code
There is one other aspect of this, and I am quite serious about it. The minister changed the legislation here so that there is a much greater degree of administration of legislation under regulation at his discretion. We have seen this shift from legislative control into regulatory control to a much greater extent recently. We saw the minister enacting the telephone betting through order in council. In this bill we have seen that he has taken a large chunk of the legislation and switched it so that it will be done by regulation.
I pointed out some of the problems that the industry is concerned about. It is now subject to his regulatory capability and to the guidance that his department will give him on how the regulations should be administered. Bureaucratic control here again is taking over another industry to a greater extent.
We saw in Bill C-48 last year that the minister of energy said time and again: "This is the way we will administer this act." Now, less than a year having passed since that legislation was enacted by Parliament, we have seen the minister changing the direction that he had told us originally was the way in which he was going to administer the discretionary elements of Bill C-48. It is a very serious matter that we are considering here, the shift from legislative to regulatory control. I will not get into a great debate on this today but I just comment to the House that this is something that we on this side take very seriously. We feel that there must be a reversal of this trend. I encourage the minister to take that message to his cabinet colleagues.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe, we should be going ahead with this legislation. I recognize that there are some problems on the moral side. People are concerned that this will increase betting. I am satisfied it will not increase betting but will control it to a greater extent.
I repeat my request to the minister. I think it would be helpful to us in voting on this legislation if the minister would be somewhat more forthcoming about how he proposes to regulate those protective elements to which I referred earlier in my remarks. If the minister is able to satisfy our concerns, I believe we should be able to pass this bill quickly.
[Translation\


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. The few comments that I want to make in this House are in fact in support of this bill, and I must admit first of all that I am prejudiced in favour of the bill as 1 have owned racehorses in the past and, as soon as 1 can afford it, in other words as soon as my political career is over, I intend to buy more amblers and trotters to take part in this sport which is really exceptional and important for the economic life of our country.
I therefore believe that it is important to recall, Mr. Speaker, that in Quebec, for instance, over 4,000 workers are directly employed because of horseraces and that there has been a problem these last few years because the purses have

June 11, 1982
Criminal Code
not increased at the same rate as inflation, with the easily understandable result that good horses raised in Canada have left the country for New York or New Jersey, where the purses are much larger precisely because these American states have tax systems which benefit the owners of good horses.
The growing concern about small racetracks was mentioned earlier. 1 believe that what small racetracks have to fear is the disappearance of the larger race tracks which allow their good horses to graduate to a better track. If race tracks are closed, such as Richelieu Park, as they have closed elsewhere in Quebec, it is precisely because there are fewer bets in Montreal, which means that less money can be earned, and if there is not as much money in the purses, Mr. Speaker, it is easy to understand that the demand for grooms, blacksmiths, oats and pari-mutuel employees is lower. This therefore causes the loss of jobs. If bets are placed legally, there is nothing immoral about it. What was immoral was to have to go through people who had no right to do what this bill will allow. The Queen's Plate will be held in Toronto next week. I shall be there, Mr. Speaker, to see the horse owned by Jean-Louis Levesque, Le Danseur, win the race. Last year, the winner was the horse owned by Jack Carmichael, who is a good friend of mine. I must tell the House that these men are great citizens who do a lot to help Canada and their province.
The pari-mutuel is a legitimate and beneficial system. I am certainly not afraid to see this system grow, as the previous speaker said, because if it grows, it will mean more revenue for the provinces. Our deficit will thus be reduced, but what is most important is that more money will be re-distributed to the racing industry. This indutry has never received much assistance from the government. On the contrary, for the provincial governments, the racing industry is often a sector which has been milked dry, and if this industry wants our assistance today, I believe that it is our duty to do immediately everything possible to guarantee that racing will survive. The example of the Fort Erie track was mentioned earlier.
We could also mention the case of Windsor. In the case of Windsor, Mr. Speaker, where the unemployment rate is high, many people who worked for the pari-mutuel at the Windsor racetrack did this as a second job, but this has now become their main source of employment because there are no more jobs in the automobile industry. What will happen to these people if we drop the pari-mutuel system today, Mr. Speaker? The racing industry creates a lot of jobs and produces a lot of spin-off employment, and too often it has been neglected by the government which only saw races as a way of raising money. In fact, contrary to what people think, if the big racetracks are in good shape, the smaller tracks will be as well, and it only makes sense.
During the past few years, Mr. Speaker, we have set up various programs, including advance betting, where the bets vary according to the pool. We initiated telephone bets and today, we are introducing inter-track betting, and I hope that soon we will be able to revise the commissions taken by
governments on each $2 bet to give the tracks a larger percentage, and finally, that we shall have a form of all-track betting which is similar to what already exists in the State of New York.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook). As a racing enthusiast myself, 1 could appreciate his comments. He mentioned that his parents are from Kentucky. Personally, I was able to go to Churchill Downs several times to see the Kentucky Derby, when the winners were River Ridge and Secretariat. This year, I had an invitation, but I had to stay here. But rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as I leave Parliament for good and start to make a little money, I am going to buy some race horses again. Maybe some day, I will have a horse that will race in the Queen's Plate in Toronto, and maybe even in the Kentucky Derby.


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, while I have no problem with this legislation and hope it passes through the House speedily, I do take exception to some of the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Like many other Canadians, I do not think he realizes the importance of this bill and the fact that thoroughbred horse racing and standardbred racing industry in this country is an industry. Coming from Hamilton, I think he sees an industry as something with a smokestack which belches out thick clouds of smoke and does not realize there are 40,000 people directly employed by this industry and another 60,000 employed on the sidelines.
This industry is in trouble because of the times we are in. It needs all the help it can get, and this legislation will give the industry some good new management tools it can use to make a profit. The bill would encourage the industry to grow.
I would like to read from my notes just one statement which I think lays this matter out pretty clearly.
Inter-track betting will increase revenue-producing opportunities in two ways. First, it will enable a track to draw additional patronage from its existing market. Second, it will allow a track to generate revenue from its racing in broader markets. In these ways inter-track betting will permit racing associations to make more effective utilization of their assets in today's high cost and fiercely competitive environment. Horsemen, of course, will benefit through improved purses.
In recent years, Garden City Raceway in St. Catharines, the Brockville and Owen Sound receways in Ontario and Sherbrooke Raceway in Quebec have all been unable to attract sufficient patronage and have ceased to operate. Numerous other Canadian tracks have been forced to suspend operations for extended periods. In the absence of the kinds of opportunities promised by inter-track betting, more closures are probable. The consequences of track closures extends beyond the industry, of course, into community considerations such as employment, support of local suppliers of goods and services.
June 11, 1982

tourist trade and property and business taxes. Implementation of inter-track betting will not only help to preserve existing benefits to communities in which tracks are located but will also create substantial additional employment.
I feel very strongly that this legislation will go a long way toward giving tracks the boost they need in these difficult times.
As a veterinarian I would just like to spend a couple of minutes talking about horses because if these race tracks in Canada start to collapse and the business starts to go under, breeders will not be able to stay in business, and gradually we will lose the thoroughbred industry in the country. We will lose the thoroughbred horse. The thoroughbred horse is a very important part of the entire equine picture because he is an important part of breeding in many, many aspects of the equine scene. Our hacks and show horses, show jumpers, rodeo horses and chuckwagon horses are all important parts of the equine business. Without the thoroughbred behind all this, we will lose.
I feel very strongly that we should get this bill through the House and give the tracks the help they need. It will not do any harm. There might be a moral issue involved, but I cannot see that as a big thing in Canada nowadays. In view of the various lottery programs we have, 1 discount that.
Let us get this bill through the House and give the tracks the help they need.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill not because I am an expert in horse breeding or racing but, first, because I am an enthusiastic fan; second, because I want to see an important Canadian industry survive and prosper; and third, because I want to do all I can to reduce the amount of criminal activity in this country.
For several sessions now 1 have had a private member's bill to legalize off-track betting, the present bill being Bill C-534. My interest in the subject goes back to the days when I was solicitor general and 1 was convinced by many police chiefs that off-track betting would be a responsible move if we were to transfer the illegal betting made through bookies to legitimate betting authorities. At the present time, because we do not have off-track betting, millions of dollars are going through the bookies into organized crime, which in turn helps finance the drug trade, prostitution, pornography and so on. Therefore, any measure put forward by this government which will help reduce the flow of funds into organized crime, through bookmaking or otherwise, I would support, and 1 think this measure does so. I mentioned that 1 am an enthusiastic fan, although 1 do not frequently attend. I have had the opportunity to go to the Preakness twice, the Queen's Plate several times, and because Saratoga is the closest thoroughbred track to Montreal I have been down there many times. It is a beautiful track with some of the best thoroughbreds in the world racing there. However, 1 want to say to those who
Criminal Code
oppose on moral grounds offtrack betting on horse races that there is a bit of hypocrisy in that position. Very often these same people will tolerate betting at the racetracks, but they will not accept it off the racetrack. They will accept bingo in churches or community halls but they will not accept betting on races.
Mir. Patterson: They are not all like that.


Mr. Allmand:: I know, I am not singling anyone out. I am just saying there are some people in this country who are inconsistent in their moral principles.
I want to deal with some other points, Mr. Speaker, raised by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). He said he does not know how this bill will help employment in the horse racing industry. In fact, he thinks the bill will hurt horse racing. First of all, I want to point out that this industry directly employs approximately 40,000 people in Canada. That is more than the oil industry. These people are employed in breeding, training and racing horses, and in various jobs at the racetrack. There are in Canada about 7,000 horsebreeders, and in 1980 there were 116 racing associations carrying on pari-mutuel racing. In addition, federal and provincial government revenue from horseracing in 1980 was approximately SI26 million, money which did not go through the bookies into organized crime. In addition to the 40,000 direct jobs, there are very important economic spin-offs for feed suppliers, veterinarians, harness and equipment manufacturers, and the people who sell and service horse trucks and vans. Another very important economic spin-off is in the tourist business. In Ontario and Manitoba it is estimated that Americans crossing the border to visit our racetracks left behind about $90 million in 1980.
While I would prefer a complete off-track betting system, Mr. Speaker, which is what my private bill would do, this bill goes part of the way, and consequently I support it. To those who oppose it on moral grounds I ask them to look at their moral principles, be consistent and avoid hypocrisy. For those like the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain who think this bill will hurt employment, I ask them to examine the figures I have put on record to see that in fact horseracing and horse breeding is a very important business in Canada and will do a lot to help our economy and employment in those areas where this is an important function.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nielsen:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1982
Criminal Code
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-l 17, to amend the Criminal Code.
On Clause 1-


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 2-Coming into force:
Erik Nielsen: May I ask the minister when it is the intention of this government that this bill be proclaimed?


Eugene Whelan: All I can tell the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, is as soon as possible.


Erik Nielsen: Well, that is hardly satisfactory. The government considers this a very urgent bill. Surely they should have some order in their planning so that they can tell us now when they intend to proclaim the bill, within a time-frame of, say, a week, two weeks or even a month.


Eugene Whelan: I would say before the House adjourns.


Erik Nielsen: I take it that the minister implicitly says that the bill will be proclaimed on or before June 30; is that correct?


Eugene Whelan: 1 would hope so.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question if I may. Two of the members who rose to speak after I did mentioned that one of their reasons for supporting the bill had to do with the impact this bill might have on criminal activity.


Erik Nielsen: We are on Clause 2.


Ian Deans: I just want to ask a question with regard to this because before it is proclaimed I would like to know what the minister feels about this. If I interpret correctly the remarks of the hon. members, they are saying that because there is an illegal bookmaking operation, we will solve that problem by legalizing off-track betting. Taken to its logical conclusion, I wonder if the minister would agree with the thought that were we to look at making legal all matters which are presently illegal, that would somehow or other resolve our problems in the minds of the members.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, we heard the figures on how much betting on horse racing is done through bookies; we do not say this bill will eliminate that. I do not think there is anything that anyone can do by passing laws which will eliminate bookies totally or illegal betting, but we do think it will eliminate some. Some of the money will go directly to the racetrack, and in turn to the industry.
There is a great deal of misconception about how much money is bet by the bookies. About 90 per cent of the bookies' operation is other than horse racing. About 10 per cent of the functions of a bookie operation is horse racing. The rest is football, baseball, hockey, soccer, golf-you name it. We do not say we can eliminate it but we think we can lessen illegal betting. The more money that is bet will actually be placed in
the horse racing industry through the pari-mutuel betting system. In turn, the horse owner-operators will share in a larger amount of revenue so they will naturally have a bigger share.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, may I pursue this for a moment? Is it not true that on balance the effect this will have will be only on those municipalities where a track exists to which a person would go to make a telephone call to place a bet? For the majority of municipalities across the country the operation of illegal bookmaking will be continued. I think the minister would be in agreement with that. However, 1 would ask the minister to elaborate on one of the arguments made by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East when he mentioned the assistance in eliminating tjie sort of criminality within the system which currently exists. Is it the minister's intention then to open bookmaking in a legal sense in all areas of sport and other areas where betting regularly takes place through illegal bookmaking in order to eliminate the criminality involved?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, that is a strong argument which many people put forward that this bill is going to eliminate it. I do not think we can eliminate it in horse racing with what we are proposing. I do not think you can eliminate it in any of the options that bookie operators have. But what the hon. member said is true, that is, where there is no racetrack there are bookies. They are all over the place. It is illegal for them to operate but from time to time some of them are arrested, some of them are fined. In many instances they are not fined in a very severe manner, I must say. But we do not pretend that we are going to eliminate all the bookie operations. There is an arrangement for telephone account betting. You can use a zenith number. Again, as the hon. member said, those who can afford it will be the ones who use it. They will need to have money on deposit. They will not be able to call up and say, "I want to make a bet" as they can with their bookie, but the bookie uses strong-arm tactics to recover any loss if he has one. This system will be only for those who can afford to bet. I do not condone a tax on poor people, as the hon. member said. That is one of the reasons I am very recluctant to go to the off-track betting shops. As I said earlier, there are many people already making applications for off-track betting shops. I have strong feelings about that.
Mention was made earlier about the amount of revenue which the federal government gets. It was suggested that we may be making money. We receive 0.6 of the take, which is for our administration. It is clearly stated that all levies collected are used to cover the cost of supervision by the federal government. The surplus revenue is carried over for'use in the next fiscal year, that is retained earnings. You are never allowed to have any more than a surplus $2 million. When there is a surplus of more than $2 million the rate of levy is reduced. Automatically that has to be done.
June 11, 1982

An hon. member also asked about supervision of the racetrack. We were also asked about regulations. We have a good record as far as supervision is concerned. I think the race tracks in Canada are very well supervised, and we want to maintain that.
As far as changes in regulations are concerned, we have changed the amount of take to 15 per cent for small tracks. If the take is too big or if it is too little, we want to be able to adjust that. The racing industry is agreeable to that. They want that so that we do not have to come back to the House every time there is a need for a change. That is the reason for that being included in the bill so we do not have to wait ten years, as we are at the present time. We are waiting ten years to make that change. I do not know if I will be the minister in ten years or not, some people think I have been here too long now-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -but let me remind hon. members that there was one minister of agriculture in Canada for 22 years.


Erik Nielsen: Look what happened to him.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain made reference to the importance and the unimportance of this bill. Many others have stated how many thousands of people are involved in the employment in this industry. Inter-track betting will mean more people will be employed. Through the telephone betting system more people will be legitimately employed. The Windsor racetrack, which is not in my constituency but in the constituency next to mine, is already preparing to hire 25 people who will run the system for them. To some people that number may not be significant.


Erik Nielsen: You are going to talk out your own bill.


Eugene Whelan: I think this is an important bill. It has a chain effect on the amount of people whose jobs depend on the overall racing industry, which is a huge industry.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Chairman, is the minister proposing to respond to my question on the protection of the market area of the track? How does he propose to administer that? What about protection of horsemen? Will the minister be introducing any regulations to restrict tracks from reducing the amount of live racing as they increase the amount of inter-track racing?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, first it has to be agreed that you will have inter-track racing. This can mean the greater use of a facility, for instance, if one track has racing and the other does not. If there is a club room and a dining room a track can use large TV screens in them. It will be the same as watching the races without having to travel 100 miles or 150 miles to a race. People will be able to watch races enjoy a meal at the same time with their family. We say this will have to be worked out with the tracks. Our people will be working very closely to protect the interests of the tracks. Many small tracks have expressed a concern that this may put them out of business. We do not want that. We will be supervising the
Criminal Code
situation very closely. The racetrack in Sudbury has no problem because it does not have a track within its boundary. It could join with any other track in southern Ontario and run inter-track betting there all winter long or whenever its racing dates were not on. Tracks are quite eager to participate in that kind of a program.
I cannot take the time to outline all of the ways and means by which we intend to make this as fair as possible and make sure that the racing industry is economically viable. We want it to be successful.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I asked two specific questions. I do not know whether or not the minister does not want to answer them. What about a track that is located in city A that is close to city B, and one has live racing, can the other one have inter-track betting even if it impinges on the market of the track with live racing? Second, will the regulations prohibit a track from reducing the amount of live racing as it increases the amount of inter-track betting?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member knows that at the present time we set by negotiation the dates of racing for each track across Canada. Those dates cannot be changed that easily. In fact, they are not changed very much at all. It is only by mutual consent if some track does not want so many days, etc. that those dates are available to another track and transferred. There will not be inter-track betting unless there is agreement between the two tracks.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain referred to my remarks, I think I should clarify the point. I told the House that the statement I made was based upon information which I obtained when I was solicitor general. At that time a good number of chiefs of police in the country argued in favour of off-track betting, not as a means of eliminating illegal betting but as another means of reducing it.
When the minister announced his measures last year, he mentioned the capability of betting by telephone from various areas of the country. For example, under the measures the minister announced, a person could telephone from Hamilton to the track in Fort Erie or to the track in Toronto to place bets. Consequently this would help reduce illegal betting in Hamilton. Of course this could be done in Peterborough or other places as well, not through the bill particularly, but through the other measures announced by the minister.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the Conservative House leader wanted a date for the proclamation of the bill. I am told by my officials that it may not be possible before approximately six weeks for it to go through all the rigamarole it goes through and for it to be proclaimed.
Clause 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Denis Éthier: Shall I report the bill?

June 11, 1982
Renewable Resources


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Pierre De Bané: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I indicated earlier to hon. members that if Bill C-117 were completed before four o'clock, it might be the wish of hon. members to call it four o'clock and to proceed to private members' hour. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the idea then that private members' hour would terminate at approximately seven minutes to five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member is correct.
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.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
All items preceding No. 61 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: that Bill C-261, to amend the Resources and Technical Surveys Act (renewable energy), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the session started some time ago and having had a long-term interest in the renewable energy field, I placed before the House some ten private members' bills which would foster the whole field of renewable energy. Many of these bills are very simple in their content and would not cost the government any money. They would encourage the various departments and officials within those departments to pay more particular attention to the potential of renewable energy in Canada.
The Resources and Technical Surveys Act was passed in the House in 1966-67. At that time not many people in the country were concerned about the price of energy. Under the legislation the minister was made responsible for co-ordinating, promoting and recommending national policies and programs with respect to energy, mines, minerals, water and other resources, and for carrying out surveys on Canada lands in conjunction with the provinces, those surveys to determine the potential for minerals, oil, natural gas, electric generation and so forth.
At that time renewable energies were not included in the act. As a result, information and technical data, which are essential if we are to know what we have in the nation as far as potential is concerned, were not in effect surveyed. Of course, some of the figures are useful for those who wish to go through the charts to determine whether in fact there is potential in their area for an aquafer of water, geothermal energy or a biomass potential of some sort. But that information has not been gathered in the same way as information concerning mining or other potentials.
The major thrust of this bill is very simple. It is to change the perspective on the part of the department and its officials, so that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will come to see the renewable potential in the country as a realistic and viable source of energy. As I said, the amendments are simple. All they really do is to insert into a number of sections of the Resource and Technical Surveys Act the term "renewable energy". If we look at the definitions contained in the original bill, the term "minerals" does not include the renewable resources sector. This is the difficulty to which I am referring.
At the present time there is still a tremendous emphasis upon oil and natural gas. Given the difficulties inherent in the development of that potential due to the fact that much of it is offshore and very expensive, we are importing over 300,000 barrels of imported oil per day. There is now much more emphasis being placed upon renewable energies by ordinary citizens of the nation. The government has responded in some ways. For example, last year approximately SI50 million was spent on renewable and off-oil technology and programs by the federal government. A similar amount was spent by the provinces. We have programs such as FIRE, the Forest Industry Renewable Energy project, under which it is intended to spend some $288 million on grants for projects over the next number of years. We have the biomass loan guarantee program and the ENFOR program, or the energy from forests program. Under that program some $30 million is to be spent over five years to help heat industries and homes with wood furnaces. Also we have the PUSH program wherein governments are putting renewable sources of energy in their buildings and projects. Then there is the PASEM program which provides grants to various industries across the nation to help
June 11, 1982

in the product development for projects such as solar or wind installations and the like.
Last year the House asked a number of its members to form a task force to bring forward a report on energy alternatives. It has been referred to as the Lefebvre report, but it is actually entitled, "Energy Alternatives". The report was made. It contained some 65 recommendations to assist Canada in attaining energy self-sufficiency through the help of renewable energy.
Perhaps I might read a paragraph from that report made by the chairman, the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre). He said:
Canada has the resources to be a leader in global energy transition. In this century we have the opportunity not only to secure our own energy future, but also to export new energy technologies we develop along the way. We appreciate that this transformation of our energy system will not be easily achieved, and our recommendations reflect the magnitude of the effort required. We are, however, optimistic that with a concerted effort, and enthusiastic and sustained commitment, the task can be accomplished.
I agree entirely with that statement. Canada has the potential to attract many interested citizens to use those renewable energies which exist under our lands, on our lands and in the sky. The 65 recommendations should be acted upon by the government as quickly as possible. It is my hope that some of the private member's bills which I have introduced will assist to that end. I have reviewed the update to the National Energy Program which was tabled in the House by the minister last week. He has said that many of the committee's recommendations are already being implemented. For example, he said that:
-the Government of Canada has greatly increased funding for research and development in the areas of conservation, renewables and synthetic fuels.
I hope that this is true. However, I am not as optimistic as is the minister that all these recommendations are being put into place in rapid succession. I feel that much more could be done. It is my hope that the department will move quickly to implement those recommendations.
As one reads through the recommendations it can be seen that Canadians have much to be optimistic about. It is evident that the committee and the task force have done an excellent job. It is desirable that these studies be conducted in order to show the potential of renewables. We must persuade the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to assist in implementing and selling these ideas.
This bill will not require any extra effort by the officials or even additional manpower in any department. All that is suggested by the bill is to have the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture insist that while their officials plan and implement their surveys, they look for the potential of renewable energy in Canada at the same time. I believe it is a relatively simple request.
When I phoned officials at the geological survey branch of Energy, Mines and Resources, I discovered that they have been conducting many of these surveys for some time. They have indicated the potential of hydroelectricity-which is a renewable energy-within their surveys. The Department of
Renewable Resources
Agriculture has been conducting surveys on biomass. The Department of Environment has conducted surveys on wind conditions around airports due to their effect on airplanes. There are surveys from the Department of Forestry with respect to the potential in that area. I am uncertain as to whether the committee mentioned surveys conducted on available heat units from the sun.
People who would like access to that information might have difficulty finding out which department to get that information from in the first place, and it is not in any usable form, in any event. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources makes the information which it has from its surveys on oil and gas potential available to the private industry as well as to Petro-Canada. That information is analysed and conveyed to the industry. No such analysis is conducted on potential renewable energies such as wind or biomass, which can be made available to Canadians so they may realize the potential of these resources. This information is unavailable for many towns as well. There are many towns on the prairies which have difficulty finding water if they are not close to a river.
We know that in the early 1960s the minister, who was at that time the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), commenced an extensive survey of the prairies under the ARDA program to determine what the ground water sources were in that region for use in the agricultural and other industries. As a result of those surveys, many towns which are now looking for water sources use that information because it is available in the department. I believe that some towns in Saskatchewan have used that information and have found fresh water sources from aquafers below.
New heat pumps are being developed. One has been developed by the National Research Council and is now going to the testing stage so it can be approved by the Canadian standards agency and made available to Canadians. That heat pump will have the capacity to take the heat from water and turn it into air heat to heat our homes. This would present a great advantage to many rural communities in Canada. In order to make use of this development we would need to know, for example, the sources of ground water below our surface as well as its temperature in order to determine whether it would be viable to drill a well. It would also be important to determine if we can return the cooled water so it can again be reheated underground. That is an example of the kind of survey which can be conducted and made available to Canadians through these proposed changes to this bill.
I am sure that the same kind of aquafers exist all across Canada. Perhaps many wells have already been drilled in Ontario, the maritimes and British Columbia for which that information is already available. This information would be very valuable if our officials were to collect the data and condense it into usable form.
In the United States a number of years ago the renewable energy proposals that were introduced by the administration at that time were taken very seriously. Officials there came up

June 11, 1982
Renewable Resources
against the same problems which we are facing now, that is how to convey the information to citizens, towns and municipalities so it can be used. In order to solve that problem they decided to gather all the available information and then provide knowledgeable people in the industry at various centres in the United States which could be reached by dialing a zenith phone number. Therefore, if someone wanted to phone to inquire about installing a solar unit in their house they could obtain the necessary information. A town or municipality could use this service to find out if it is possible to use ground heat to heat its buildings. Some units of the Armed Forces are presently using that technology. This information is made available to citizens of the United States through the use of the zenith phone number. It is one possible example which we could follow. It would be easy to implement because there are subdepartments of Energy, Mines and Resources across Canada which could make that information available by providing a telephone number.
As an example of consolidation of information, the present federal government has in place what is called the Canada lands inventory. It takes inventory of the potential wealth of minerals in our nation now, consolidates it and makes it available to the private sector if it wishes to use that information. That is the kind of example we should follow to consolidate all the potential renewable energy sources in this country and make them available to our citizens.
We must work closely with the provinces when doing this because, of course, many of these surveys are done by the provincial governments. The natural resources, of course, are under provincial jurisdiction. However, it will be useful for the federal government to have some of that information in its data bank as well. I would think that it would be important for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of the Environment and others to work very closely with the provinces to put this type of system in place.
As we know, the original power and authority of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was in fact to collect information. Things have changed a lot since that time. Like other departments, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is no longer simply a data collecting agency but is also involved in the whole gamut of energy projects, dealing with the daily production and importing of energy, and in assisting Canadians to give up their dependency on oil and look to other energy sources. So we found that until the advent of renewable resources, any section of the act dealing with minerals, such as Section 3 of the Resources and Technical Surveys Act, automatically covered most energy sources. For instance, oil and gas are considered as minerals for the purposes of the Mineral Year Book of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. However, some sections of the act, such as Sections 6 and 7, can be construed to include renewable energy sources in their bounds, while others do not include that possibility. Again, I say that the purpose of this bill is to remove this anomaly by making specific reference to renewable energy in those sections where reference to energy is only implicit in the word "mineral".
We know that many of our officials in departments go by the letter of the law, and as a result they do not collect the data because "mineral" does not refer to a renewable energy source. These amendments would allow the department to collect and publish that data which is either not available now or is being collected by other departments. As an example, a person who wanted data on passive solar installations, would perhaps first have to contact the National Research Council and then Environment Canada. Someone who would like information on biomass would have to contact Agriculture Canada and someone who wanted to know the velocity of wind would have to contact the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) because, as I said before, that information is only collected at airports. That is how the bill would work.
We have found there are many readjustments which are necessary in order to get to the viable sources of energy. Once this information is found, it must be made available to the public. More and more people are asking questions with regard to the potentials. Right across the country, many groups have been formed which are interested in forms of solar energy, biomass energy, and so forth, and these people should have that data. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House. I have a number of other bills which I hope I can debate in the forthcoming weeks if the session continues. I know that the work in this field is work that must go on. Hopefully, this bill will ensure that that type of work will continue.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my remarks on this bill. One cannot help but wonder why we are going through the exercise today, not because it is unimportant but, rather, because it is always very difficult to speak to oneself. However, I want to congratulate the hon. member for bringing the bill forward. I want to offer our support in trying to promote both the concepts as contained in the bill, limited though they are, and, of course, the over-all concept of dependence on renewable resources as opposed to our existing dependence on non-renewable resources. We expended about two months this year dealing with energy legislation. In all fairness, it was really a debate about the past. It was a debate about an energy resource which, important though it is right at this precise moment, has a limited future. It has a limited future because it will inevitably become depleted, or else the cost of getting it from the source will be so high that it will be virtually impossible for us to take advantage of it. Therefore it depressed me, I must say to Your Honour, that we were devoting so much of our time and that we continue to devote so much of our capital to looking for and getting the elusive last drop of oil. As I look ahead, I just cannot imagine how much that last drop of oil will be worth when we finally get it out of the ground. How many billions of dollars will it cost us to get it, and what use will it be to us in any event?
I am heartened by the fact that there are more people today who are concerned about renewable resources, and renewable energy resources in particular. I become a bit disappointed,
June 11, 1982

however, to find that we do not seem to place the kind of emphasis on it that I would like to see. I am absolutely sure that the future of this country and of the world will be dependent on the renewable resources which we know are there but for which we have not yet developed either the technology or the will to use them. As 1 look at the matter, I am persuaded that it is common sense that we cannot continue to rely on a depletable resource for the fuelling needs of all the world. We will have to find and develop substitutes and we will find and develop them. The sooner we do it, the better will be the planning undertaken for the future which so many of us try to put forward for Canadians. We will develop new substances for lubrication. We are in the process of doing it right now. It is therefore important that we spend more of our time, more of our energy and more of our available dollars in that development. We will develop new ways of fuelling our transportation systems and we will develop new transportation systems to accommodate the new fuelling methods. But, again, we are being held up by the sense that somehow or other we should use up all of the existing petroleum-based products before we really turn our minds and our attention to the alternatives which are not necessary if we are to be able to meet future demand. We will find ways to build homes and places of business with the proper kind of conservation in mind and with the new fuelling methods which will both run industry as it emerges and develops and heat and cool the places in which we will work and live.
1 am not sure what it is about the psyche of those in charge which allows them to play fast and loose with energy itself. It is quite clear to me that the emphasis which is being placed by the government on the dollar, as measured by the dollars it allocates for petroleum-based fuels, is the result of advice being given to it. In my judgment it has been misguided by the advice. 1 would have thought that having gone through a minicrisis not many months ago with regard to energy available from traditional sources, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources would have placed greater emphasis on larger amounts of capital reserves for the use of renewable resources. I hope I am not doing them a disservice but it seems to me that the reason for this is the size and the importance of the lobby. 1 do not want to detract from the place that petroleum-based products have had in the growth of our society, nor do I want to downplay its continuing importance but I despair to think that we constantly inflate the price of the resource and use it up at the present rate without putting equivalent amounts into the development of a replacement resource. Recently some $6.5 billion was earmarked for PIP grants to the oil industry at the same time as funding for forestry research was cut back. We have not been able to keep pace with need. We cannot rely on the chance that somewhere along the way we will be able to find a sufficient quantity of petroleum-based products to meet the ever growing need. 1 am worried that we are not putting the money into renewable resources that we are prepared to put into depletable resources.
Renewable Resources
In the energy crisis of the 1970s the State of Vermont quickly shifted back to the use of wood, a renewable energy resource. It would not be entirely true to say that it has maintained the level of use at that time but, in the main, it was a permanent transition because people realized that they cannot rely on a resource from outside the country over which they have no control when it comes to price or delivery. With each passing day that resource is becoming more elusive and less available. We could have made the transition as well, had we foreseen the crisis. If we had planned well we could have taken advantage of our ability to grow similar kinds of wood supplies. I do not doubt for a moment that in Canada we have the necessary technology to do this.
In the long run the cost will be considerably lower if we invest in the development of renewable resources now than if we wait until another crisis occurs. If we wait until some oil company announces that we do not have thirty years' supply left but only five to seven years' supply, the cost of making the transition could be ten times as high as it would be today.
I think it is fair to say that we should offer the same grants for renewable energy as have been offered for depletable energy resources. We must increase, rather than cut back, funding for research and development in such areas as the forest industry. We just cannot allow it to find its own level and fund its own research because these days it does not generate sufficient funds to enable it to undertake the necessary work. Before the next crisis hits we must undertake the public education that will encourage people to make the transition. This cannot be done by scare tactics. People are becoming almost immune to the scare tactics that were used some years ago. There must be another way to convince people that it is in their long-term interest to switch from what they presently use to something that will last forever.
One reason we have difficulty with this is that when the off-oil program, for example, was introduced, people were encouraged to switch to natural gas or electricity. At the time natural gas cost considerably less than oil, but it did not take long for that industry to realize it had a captive market and that once people had invested in the necessary retrofitting they were not in a position to switch back again. In that instance the natural gas industry took unfair advantage of the public's desire to be helpful in the battle against ever-increasing fuel costs and the unwise use of existing resources. It is not fair to get people to switch from one resource to another and then allow them to be ripped off. I think that is what happened over the last couple of years.
I want to say to the hon. member that, as he admitted, this is a small step but I think it is a worthwhile one. It will constantly keep in front of the people who plan these things the fact that we in this House who represent Canadians are no longer satisfied with the approach taken in the last few years. It is their responsibility for the future to place emphasis upon utilization and development, upon reforestation and what can be maintained as a renewable resource and to see that it is not used without proper management. Nothing is renewable if it is

June 11, 1982
Renewable Resources
not well managed. We have to be sure that the people who give advice to government, this one or any other, are not wedded to the existing reliance on non-renewable resources. They must recognize that wherever it is practicable or wherever it is feasible, we have to insist that the transfer be made. If that is done, the future is very bright for us.
This is an industry, Mr. Speaker, that gives us a tremendous opportunity in the world, if we were to get into it in a reasonably efficient and substantial way. There is no question in my mind that we could provide leadership to many parts of the world. We would have a technology available to us that would be marketable in world terms. We could utilize that to improve Canada's role in world events. There are many parts of the world where they do not have any non-renewable resources of any kind.
We do have the capacity to be self-sufficient in the use of renewable resources. If we were to develop the technology, if we were to show, by example, a willingness to utilize those properly, we could provide a great initiative for many parts of the world and do them a great service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak on this particular bill. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) was quite correct in his early statement that his interest in this subject of renewable energy is well known in the House. It is not only through the fact, as he has indicated himself, that he has placed many bills in the private members' area but from the study that he himself has conducted and the speeches that he has made. In the course of the energy programs that have been brought forward, he always seems to find a way to work into the debate something about renewable resources. The fact that his bill, although it is No. 261, has come forward today is a tribute to the hon. member, and an acknowledgement of the fact that he is able to bring a subject that is certainly interesting to the floor of the House for debate.
As someone who has participated in these private members' hours for close to 14 years, I can assure him that many of the ideas that started here as motions or as private members' bills quite often find themselves incorporated in government legislation either of this party or, in a short time possibly, his particular party. It does find its way quite often into legislation. The reason that it may not at first blush be endorsed or incorporated into legislation or accepted in toto is that there may be some technical problem or something of that nature that would give the departmental officials cause to wonder whether, if they incorporated this, it would have a particular impact.
It is important also that people who are pioneers in this particular field recognize that there are members who are prepared to bring bills of this nature to the floor of the House. Quite often, particularly when we have what we thought were
adequate supplies of oil in the world, there were many people working at that time on renewable resources and wondering if anyone was listening, particularly if anyone in Parliament was listening or in the provincial legislatures, for that matter. When we had the jolt that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) talked about, in the early 1970s, about security of supply and then the second rap in the quadrupling of the oil price by OPEC, suddenly these people who were pioneers were front and centre and had already done a good deal of research in this particular area and at long last felt, I think, that someone was recognizing the fantastic effort that they had made in their pioneer effort in this particular field of renewable energy resources.
It is no accident that I would rise, Mr. Speaker, to speak today on this subject because some years ago it was my privilege to serve as parliamentary secretary to the minister of energy, mines and resources. I know from that experience that the departmental officials, very early in the game, prior to the quadrupling of the oil price-I think it is fair to say more accurately probably through the jolt that we received from the National Energy Board or from the multinational oil companies-found that the prediction that they had made almost a year before was no longer true and that we were in fact facing a shortage of this particular commodity. On that basis the department moved, and I think moved very quickly and very effectively, into a field where they recognized at long last that something would have to be done, or at least something more would have to be done about renewable energy resources.
I compliment the member. I think the bill contains a good idea, the kind of thing he is talking about incorporating into legislation. I do not think, as he says, that it would prove expensive. As a matter of fact, it might prove a good investment if it were incorporated even in its present form. The hon. member was kind enough to comment on the excellent surveys conducted today by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, particularly by the geological surveys branch. They, like anyone else, endeavour through their own initiative, their own talents and skills, to embark upon the kinds of surveys that they think will be beneficial to an industry or a group or to the country as a whole. It is only through the kind of representation that we make, or that the hon. member has already made, that they will know how their surveys, if conducted, could be more productive for Canadians.
In my constituency, in the area of petrochemicals we think of ourselves as the petrochemical centre of Canada. The kind of work, the kind of assistance received and the kinds of surveys done by energy, mines and resources is absolutely crucial if this information is to be made known in a form that will be beneficial to a petrochemical industry.
Second, with the impact of that jolt about the possibility of not having a security of supply, many corporations decided that they had to get together to work out a system whereby the best possible use would be made of this depleting natural resource, namely, oil. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), who was here today, and was at that time the minister of
June 11, 1982

industry, trade and commerce, encouraged several corporations to get together and not compete with one another building six world-scale plants for petrochemicals but to build three, and to build them one after the other, so in that way we would not bankrupt six operations but get two or three going in Canada. One at that time was in my own area of Sarnia-Lambton, the second one was anticipated at that time would take place in Alberta, and the third one in the city of Montreal.
That was a great example of government and industry getting together to meet a particular situation, realizing that while people are out working, pioneering in this field of renewable resources, we had to make the best and most effective use of the natural resources that we already have in place. World scale plants of the kind like Petrosar is a good case in point.
The hon. member also made the point that we should be looking beyond our own doors. We are not the only country that is faced with this phenomenon. We are a country that is blessed with natural resources, a country that probably does not face the same predicament or difficulty as others. Because others feel more of a panic situation, they are moving ahead and doing work and spending more money and focusing more attention on the renewable resource factor. Because they are doing that, we should take advantage of going to seminars, international conferences, we should be encouraging Canadian engineers and Canadian people to travel abroad, to go to these seminars to find out what is being done in this particular area by other countries, whose problem at the present time is obviously greater than Canada's but one that we cannot ignore.
The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain was correct when he said that the impetus for a lot of the government action, government money and government moves, was the sudden realization that we were faced with the two problems of a possible lack in security of supply and then we were apprehensive of what might happen to the world price, given the strength of the cartel represented by OPEC. On that basis, more focus, more money and more emphasis has certainly come by way of government, whether it be provincial or federal government.
The Canadian government's interest in the renewable energy field was demonstrated in 1974 with the establishment of a program of renewable energy research and development. A further major initiative in 1978 launched several new programs oriented toward industrial development in this particular area. More recently, 1 am advised, the 1980 National Energy Program emphasized the future role of renewable energy resources in providing for a stable and independent future. Criticism and hyperbole are often directed at the National Energy Program. The press and other media have a tendency to emphasize the negative, and it is easy to make a flamboyant and hyperbolic speech about the negative, but we
Renewable Resources
tend to fail to glean many of the good things about the National Energy Program. At long last emphasis has been placed on one of them, when for too long it has been in the shadows.
One part of the National Energy Program says:
Canada is well endowed with non-renewable resources that can provide a bridge into a future where Canadians use less energy in their daily lives, and renewable energy plays a much larger role. Renewable energy in the form of hydroelectricity already contributes 24 per cent of Canada's energy. Other renewables contribute a share approximately equal to that of nuclear power ... The realities of the energy future indicate the wisdom of accelerated efforts to develop new and renewable energy forms, to stand beside hydroelcctricity as the basis for a sustained, clean, and economically viable energy structure.
The National Energy Program envisages a much greater role for renewable energy. The Government of Canada believes that economic realities now favour a range of renewable energy options. The National Energy Program will provide further incentives to the commercial use of these resources, both within the comprehensive off-oil effort already described, and in the form of special new or enriched programs. It will also provide increased funds for research development and demonstration of renewable energy.
I say to the pioneers who were in the field before we heard about shortages and before we heard about increases in oil prices that here again is an indication to them that the government is aware and is prepared to act and make money available.
1 understand others wish to follow in this debate. I know my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), has been interested in this subject for a long time. I know he will want to expand on it to some extent. I wanted to put forward more ideas, but I am sure the hon. member can aid and abet my efforts.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I do wish to add to the comments made by my friend, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), with regard to renewable energy. I have been very interested in this matter for a substantial period of time. I was part of the group which had something to do with the beginnings of Canertech, which will be acting as a catalytic agent for renewable energy in the future. Quite frankly, I think it is underfunded, and we should be putting more money into it to develop renewable energy sources in the future because, as the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) indicated, we will not be able to depend on fossil fuels as our only source of energy in the twenty-first century. We will have to develop new forms of energy.
In the broad sense of the word, government-this government and the provincial governments-and, indeed, the private sector have narrowed the focus far too much in relation to renewable energy forms. According to some of the information available to us, 1 see that we are talking about renewable energy sources such as biomass, solar, wind, hydraulic, geothermal and others. However, one of the things that bothers me greatly is that a task force of this House of Commons worked for nearly a year on the question of alternative energies-not necessarily renewable, perhaps, but alternative energies-which might have great potential as replacements for fossil fuels and the existing fuels we have now including natural gas, petroleum products, hydroelectricity and other forms of energy which we all know so well. Yet when I hear

June II, 1982
Renewable Resources
what is coming from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources by way of alternatives, there is never one mention made of the task force report on alternative energy. Quite frankly, I find that unacceptable. I find it to be a slap in the face to Parliament and a slap in the face to the members of that committee. 1 was not a member of that committee but I know that the members of that committee worked diligently and hard to prepare a report which was, in my view and in the view of a great many others, an outstanding piece of work. However, we hear nothing of it, not a word. I find that totally unacceptable. The chairman of that committee was my good friend, the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), from across the river. He is one of the national capital region members. My good friend, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain), was an active member. I am not sure who the opposition members were. 1 think the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) possibly-


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: No.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) was a member. There were hard working members from the New Democratic Party, and together the members of that task force produced a good piece of work which should be recognized by the officialdom of government-in the generic sense of the word.
Every time I hear about alternative energy and renewable energy sources, there is never a word about the task force report. That has to be corrected because the task force looked far beyond the shortsighted view of some in the energy field and looked to what the future has in store and the need there will be in the future for large sources of energy, not only in Canada but also in the western world, the eastern world and the developing world. Low cost sources of fuel will be needed. The conclusion of the task force was that we should be developing those sources now. We have the skills, the researchers and the ability to be in the forefront of this new technology.
The task force referred to the new hydrogen technology. Ultimately that is the perpetual source of power. Water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen. When hydrogen is burned, it recombines with oxygen and forms water. It is a perfect non-polluting cycle. That form of gaseous energy can be used to power cars, to fly planes, to heat homes and to run factories. Hydrogen can be used to break down heavy oils into more usable fuels for transportation. Hydrogen can be used to help convert peat into oil. I never hear about peat as an alternative source of energy, although peat is an alternative source of energy in other parts of the world. Ontario probably has more peat than any other place in the world. My good friend, Ian Connerty in Toronto, has a company which has been put together to explore and mine the peat resources of this province and to convert that peat into oil as an alternative to conventional oil, heavy oil or tar sands oil. We do not hear about that.
1 think we have to look at that and at the whole fusion cycle. If we think nuclear fission is the wrong way to generate electricity in the future-and we have to have electricity under
current technology to get hydrogen-we should try to work together with other nations to develop the fusion cycle because 1 understand that is a non-polluting source as well. It would produce cheap electricity which could then be used to convert water into hydrogen and into the gases necessary for portable fuels. It would create the electricity we could use as we use electricity now, and it would create gaseous fuels for portable fuels.
These are the kinds of visionary energy alternatives which must be put before the people of this country. Quite frankly, I do not see them coming from the officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I think it is about time Parliament put before those officials the report of the task force on alternative energy and demanded that we get some answers. Why is it that hydrogen cannot be the base of twenty-first century fuel, and what are we doing to move there?
We have at the University of Toronto one of the outstanding researchers in hydrogen technology, and we should be putting more money into that university and others dealing with hydrogen. There are others. My friend from Niagara Falls tells me that when they went to California to look at alternate energy sources, they saw something called the aluminum air battery. It can be a very effective collecting and storage unit which can provide electricity from lightweight and highly efficient fuel cells. 1 never hear about that, but it is in the alternative energy report.
Parliament has a role to play in the future of this country, Mr. Speaker, much greater than we have been playing in the past. The task forces set up by this government and, I have to admit, the previous government as well, represent the kind of foresight needed to make Parliament work. But Parliament is not going to work if these task forces, which do an excellent job, are ignored by those outside of this chamber. That cannot be allowed to go on any longer. We have the task forces on regulatory reform, alternative energy and labour markets. Task force report after report has been put out by hardworking members on both sides and they have to be given serious consideration by those who might perhaps not wish to look at what is done by hon. members on both sides of this House. There are alternative energy sources, there are answers to our energy problems, some of which have been put forward by hardworking Members of Parliament. They have to be given careful consideration. When we allocate our energy research funds in the future, they have to be very largely represented in there. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hour provided for the consideration of private member's business has now expired.
June 11, 1982

Renewable Resources
It being 4.53 p.m., this House stands adjourned until At 4.53 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).	pursuant to Standing Order.
801 16-24

Monday, June 14, 1982