1983-06-27

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice) moved:: That:
Whereas the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and resolutions of the legislative assemblies as provided for in section 38 thereof;
And Whereas the Constitution of Canada, reflecting the country and Canadian society, continues to develop and strengthen the rights and freedoms that it guarantees;
And Whereas, after a gradual transition of Canada from colonial status to the status of an independent and sovereign state, Canadians have, as of April 17, 1982, full authority to amend their Constitution in Canada;
And Whereas historically and equitably it is Fitting that the early exercise of that full authority should relate to the rights and freedoms of the first inhabitants of Canada, the aboriginal peoples;
Now Therefore the House of Commons resolves that His Excellency the Governor General be authorized to issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada amending the Constitution of Canada as follows:


PROCLAMATION AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
1.	Paragraph 25(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired."
2.	Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons".
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 35 thereof, the following section:
"35.1 The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to section 25 of this Act or to this Part.
(a) a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada
and the First ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime
Minister of Canada; and
(b) the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the
aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that
item."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 37 thereof, the following Part:

[Stage Direction]
37.1 (1) In addition to the conference convened in March 1983, at least two constitutional conferences composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the First ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada, the First within three years after April 17, 1982 and the second within Five years after that date.
(2)	Each conference convened under subsection (1) shall have included in its agenda constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives of those peoples to participate in the discussions on those matters.
(3)	The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussions on any item on the agenda of a conference convened under subsection (1) that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
(4)	Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to derogate from subsection 35(1)."
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 54 thereof, the following section:
"54.1 Part IV.l and this section are repealed on April 18, 1987.
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 shall be deemed to include a reference to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983."
7.	This Proclamation may be cited as the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise, on what may be fairly called a historical occasion, to move a resolution to authorize His Excellency, The Governor General, to issue a proclamation respecting amendments to the Constitution of Canada.
For the first time in Canada's history we are today setting in motion a procedure for the amendment of our Constitution, a procedure that no longer requires us to have recourse to the Parliament at Westminster. And it is perhaps fitting that these first "made in Canada" amendments should relate to the rights and freedoms of the first inhabitants of Canada, the aboriginal peoples.
May I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the presence in the galleries of a number of the leaders of our aboriginal peoples.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 27, 1983
The Constitution


Mark R. MacGuigan: We welcome their witness to this further stage in the work we have undertaken together.
The Constitution Act, 1982, which was proclaimed here in Ottawa by Eler Majesty the Queen on April 17, 1982, contains three references to the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Section 25, which is a Section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, amounts to a rule of construction and provides that:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights of freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including
(a)	any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(b)	any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
Section 35, which comprises Part II of the Act, is entitled "Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada." This Section is substantial in nature. It provides for the recognition and affirmation of the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and goes on to define the term "aboriginal peoples of Canada" to include the Indian, Inuit, amd Metis peoples of Canada.
The Section reads as follows:
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada.
Two aspects of this provision are worthy of note. First, to the best of my knowledge Canada is one of the very few countries whose Constitutions recognize and affirm the existing rights of its aboriginal peoples. Second, never before, in any constitutional document or Act of Parliament have the aboriginal peoples been defined.
The third reference to the aboriginal peoples is to be found in Part IV which is entitled "Constitutional Conference". Part IV consists of Section 37, which reads as follows:
37. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the First Ministers of the Provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within one year after this Part comes into force.
(2)	The conference convened under Subsection (1) shall have included in its agenda an item respecting constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the identification and definition of the rights of those peoples to be included in the Constitution of Canada, and the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives of those peoples to participate in the discussions on that item.
(3)	The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representatives of the Governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussions on any item on the agenda of the conference convened under Subsection (1) that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
This section is particularly interesting in that, since it stipulates that a constitutional conference shall be held within one year after the coming into force of the Constitution Act, 1982, with a view to considering possible amendments to the legislation, it implies that the legislation in question is incomplete in its present form.
In this respect, Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before us, while perforce presented as a proposed amendment, constitutes a first proposal to settle with our aboriginal peoples certain constitutional questions left unresolved.
To understand clearly the intent of the resolution which the House is considering today, we must, I feel, take into account not only the letter of the section in question, but its spirit as well.

First, you will note that the Conference agenda had to include "An item respecting constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the identification and definition of the rights of those peoples to be included in the Constitution of Canada". May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a slight but deeply significant difference between the words respecting rights found in this Section, Section 37, and those found in Section 35. "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada", the wording used in Section 35, refer only to rights that are aboriginal in nature, or have been or may be acquired by treaty. This Section deals with Canada's historical obligations to its native peoples.
Turning to Section 37 we find a different wording with respect to rights. That Section speaks of "the identification and definition of the rights of those, that is, the aboriginal peoples to be included in the Constitution of Canada".
It will be seen right away that the wording of Section 37 is much broader than that contained in Section 35. The rights in Section 37 need not be in existence. Rather, the section looks to rights not yet identified. Nor are these rights constrained by the terms "aboriginal" or "treaty". In other words, Section 37 concerns itself with the rights of the aboriginal peoples as they should be, as well as as they are.
I do not suggest that the Sections are not linked. The process of identification and definition of new rights certainly includes the identification and definition of the existing aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in general terms in Section 35.
Under normal circumstances anyone seeking identification and definition of any rights contained in the Constitution must have recourse to the courts, but Section 37 provides, for our aboriginal peoples, a political route to follow to seek identification and definition not only of rights now contained in the Constitution, but of rights to be included in the future.
I think this careful consideration of the wording of the Constitution is important to a proper understanding of what is proposed in the resolution before the House today. I hope that Hon. Members do not find it too wearisome, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am rapidly coming to the close of the scriptural exegesis portion of my remarks.
Before I leave Section 37 may I draw the attention of the House to that part of the Section which provides that the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples, "to participate in the discussions". This might be seen as the third element of the framework that
June 27, 1983

underpins the special position of our aboriginal peoples in Canadian society as a whole. First, Section 25 protects the rights of aboriginal peoples by a rule of non-derogation in construction. Second, Section 35 recognizes their existing aboriginal and treaty rights, and third, Section 37 not only provides for the inclusion of further rights of aboriginal people in the Constitution but assures their participation in discussions of their rights.
The Constitution Act, 1982, as it is presently drafted, made a constitutional conference a definitive solution. However, it soon became very clear to all interested parties that the unresolved issues respecting the aboriginal peoples and the Constitution could not be settled in only one year and by only one conference. Early last summer, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) informed the aboriginal leaders, the provincial premiers and the territorial governments that it would be advisable to set up a permanent mechanism to replace the conference provided for in Section 37, a mechanism which would play a role no less important than the conference itself.

If I may now turn to the resolution, starting at the end rather than at the beginning, you will find, Mr. Speaker, that the new Section 37 that is proposed provides for two further constitutional conferences. The Section, as amended, continues the thrust of the original Section 37 and need not delay us further at this time.
1 should at this point, however, draw to your attention that by an accord signed by the Government of Canada and by nine of the provincial Governments, with the participation of the leaders of the aboriginal associations and the territorial Governments attested by their signatures, a third constitutional conference, chronologically to be the first, is to be held within one year of the completion of the conference held in March of this year. The fact that this conference, being the first in time, is agreed to in an accord rather than contained in the proposed amended Section 37 derives from the delay involved in the operation of the amending formula. I shall deal with the amending formula in a moment.
So, Mr. Speaker, we look ahead to three further constitutional conferences that will deal with what I have earlier called the unfinished business respecting our aboriginal peoples and the Constitution, the first of these conferences to be held prior to March 16, 1984; the second, prior to April 17, 1985; and the third, prior to April 17, 1987.
The schedule and work plan that lie before us amply demonstrate, I believe, the shared commitment of the aboriginal peoples, the Government of Canada, and the provincial and territorial Governments to the completion of this aspect of constitutional renewal, the identification and definition of the rights of the aboriginal peoples.
But the security of the on-going process is not the only achievement of the constitutional conference. Turning once
The Constitution
again to the resolution we find, first, a proposed amendment, by way of clarification, to the rule of construction in Section 25. A similar amendment, but this time substantial in nature, is proposed to Section 35 in the form of a new Subsection which makes it clear that the treaty rights referred to in that Section include "rights that now exist by way of land claim agreements or may be so acquired".
Hon. Members will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that our aboriginal peoples were eager to ensure that aboriginal rights are guaranteed equally to male and female aboriginal persons. Some confusion has ensued as to whether the wording contained in the resolution before us is that agreed upon at the conference. I can report to the House, however, that the leaders of the aboriginal peoples, showing a totally admirable generosity of spirit, have notified the Government in writing, that the wording now before us can stand, thereby avoiding delay in the process of amendment.
May I in this House express my thanks to those who have so kindly written to me and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and confirm publicly today that we will revisit this issue when we meet again next year.
The proposed wording of the new equality Subsection in Section 35 as it now stands is as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in Subsection (I) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
The last of the amendments proposed in the resolution before us today arises from the wish, common to all the aboriginal organizations, to have what they have described as a "consent" clause which would make it a constitutional requirement that they signify their consent to any amendment to any of the Sections of the Constitution that specifically affect them.

These provisions would give aboriginal peoples the right of veto with respect to certain sections of the Constitution. This would be unacceptable to the Government of Canada, since, with the exception of certain very specific cases, only the Parliament of Canada which represents all of the people of Canada enjoys a right of veto.
However, most of the conference participants acknowledged the fact that the sections of the legislation directly affecting the aboriginal peoples require special protection against possible, although, I would hope, unlikely, arbitrary intervention from one or the other of the governments.

In furtherance of this objective the resolution proposes a new Section in Part IV of the Act, to read as follows:
35.1 The Government of Canada and the provincial Governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Clause 24 of Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to Section 25 of this Act or to this Part,
(a) a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the First
26752

June 27, 1983
The Constitution
Ministers of the Provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and,
(b) the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item.
The effect of the new Section is to extend into the future the role played by the aboriginal leaders at the conference held this year and to be played by them at the three constitutional conferences, thereby giving permanent effect to the thrust of the original Section 37.
The new Section identifies Section 25 and Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. We have looked at these earlier. It also identifies Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. Hon. Members will recall that this is the provision that confers on the Parliament of Canada the exclusive right to legislate for Indians and Indian lands.
It should also be noted that the new Section is cast in the form of a commitment by the Government of Canada and the provincial Governments rather than in the form of a justiciable provision. This exceptional formulation brings me to a brief discussion of the amending formula.
As a general rule, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada calls for passage of a resolution by the Senate and Commons of Canada, and by at least seven of the legislatures of the Provinces together making up 50 per cent of the population. In the Accord to which I referred earlier, nine of the Provinces and the Government of Canada have undertaken to pass the necessary resolutions prior to December 31, 1983. Not forgetting the vagaries of the political life, I believe that this should ensure that the sought for amendments to the Constitution will be made in good time.
Turning once again to the proposed new Section 35.1, I may say that were it to be cast in the form of a justiciable provision, its effect would be to alter the amending formula. An amendment to the amending formula is one of the amendments which calls for unanimity, something which cannot be expected at this time for reasons I am sure the House will readily understand. Therefore, we have a political commitment enshrined in the Constitution. I do not feel we should see this as a lesser protection than a provision in justiciable form. Its exceptional nature tends rather to highlight it, and it will provie to be exceptionally difficult to amend or ignore.
Section 35.1 might be described, Madam Speaker, as an express convention of the Constitution. I should note that the resolution also contains a few consequential amendments, dearly beloved of lawyers but of little interest to anyone else.
Before I sit down I would like to say how impressed I was by the commitment and the diligence with which all the participants, Governments and aboriginal organizations alike, approached and pursued the long and difficult road which led to the agreement represented by the resolution before us. I believe that I can safely assert that we have opened a new chapter in the book which records the long and often sorry chronicle of the relations between Governments in Canada and
our aboriginal peoples. Today, we write the first few paragraphs in this chapter. If we have the courage, the determination, and the respect for each other which is required, we can together complete this chapter, a chapter which our children and our children's children will read with pride.
It is now my great pleasure, Madam Speaker, to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia):
That the resolution be adopted.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the Minister referred to letters from the aboriginal peoples in which they expressed their approval of the Accord. Would the Minister be willing either to table those letters in this House or refer them to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs which will sit this evening, I believe, to consider this matter? I believe those letters will be very helpful in our deliberations.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to make those letters available. I understand they have already been sent to the Opposition spokesmen. Probably the best way to handle them at this point would be to make them available to the committee tonight when it meets to begin its deliberations.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I also take pride in standing today to debate the adoption of this resolution. I listened with great interest to the Minister as he put forward what in fact we were doing today, and I do not intend to repeat that. This is the first time that we, as a Parliament, will be discussing an amendment to our Constitution, an amendment which no longer has to go to Westminster to be adopted. I am very pleased that we are now able to do that. I take pride in whatever part I can play in furthering that process.
I would like also to congratulate the aboriginal people of this nation on the way in which they were able to fit into this process, so different from the process to which they are accustomed. This was their first conference, a conference which the federal Government and the Provinces had been participating in for decades. They were aware of the procedure to be followed as this negotiation was taking place, but the aboriginal people came there for the first time. Later in my remarks I will make reference to how the Government should have assisted them further. However, even though the aboriginal people came there for the first time, they were able to put forward their views and desires in a very forthright manner, which, I am sure, made the citizens of this nation very proud. I want to congratulate these people for doing that.
There are two issues which must be addressed by those of us here today, namely, the motion which is presented for deliberation, and the principle which is inherent in that motion. The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has placed this motion before the House. If passed, this motion would allow the Governor General to issue a proclamation to amend the Constitution so that two constitutional conferences, in addition to the one which is already specified in the Act, will be allowed to take place in the next number of years. What this is meant to do is to further the process of identification and definition of
June 27, 1983

the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada in order that those rights can be entrenched in the Constitution and there will be, once and for all, a protection of those people; and their culture, their language, their way of life will no longer be completely subject to the whims of whoever the politicians are in this Chamber, or other Chambers, at any one time.
This Accord arose from and was signed as a result of a process of consultation and negotiation amongst the parties I have mentioned. This motion, which I endorse, which I know everyone in this House will endorse, is one that both we in this House and the provincial legislatures of this country should pass in all haste so that this can be entrenched in our Constitution at the earliest possible date.
One issue which 1 believe is very serious is the principle which is implicit in the motion. This principle is of vital importance to myself and to my Party, and to the people of this country, Canada. What is being challenged here today, and in other legislatures across the country, is the very rigidity of our Constitution, and what is being expressed is its dynamism, its ability to fulfil the needs and aspirations of the peoples who together comprise the country in which we have so much pride. This is the process which we are witnessing, and to which I would like to draw attention. It is not just another motion which comes to the House day after day. This motion is in its very nature the foundation of our Constitution.
Today the Government is asking for our endorsement of the ongoing process of identifying and defining the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. This endorsement I wholeheartedly give, and I know my Party wholeheartedly gives. An ongoing process is the only means by which the aboriginal peoples can achieve the commitment of the country through its most sacred law, the Constitution, of their right to remain a distinct people within the framework of the Canadian federation. Although I wholeheartedly endorse this goal, the goal of entrenching these rights in the Constitution, I cannot wholeheartedly endorse the manner and the means by which we have achieved this goal.
O)
In my opinion, the process that was witnessed by the Canadian people prior to the constitutional conference held in March of this year was totally inadequate from the start. There were many inadequacies in trying to reach the goal of those people who, in good faith, attempted to thrust Canada into the ranks of the forerunners of the world in the way in which we accommodate our aboriginal people. The processes that were undertaken can be summed up, I believe, in one sentence. Nothing was done beyond reaching a consensus that something must be done. I do not believe that was good enough. It was not good enough for me. I do not believe it was good enough for the people of this country.
It is now time for Canadians to see that in Ottawa and in the Provinces there is a will, the political will to initiate the changes necessary to ensure that the aspirations of distinct peoples, no matter where they happen to live in Canada, are given the opportunity to flourish in freedom. If we need new blood to accommodate this purpose, then let there be that new
The Constitution
blood. Let us exhort our Ministers and the present Government and, if there is a change in Government, the new Government and new Ministers, to take part in this very necessary process of negotiation that will bring the aboriginal people and the federal Government together in discussions so that they can then meet the Provinces and bring about change.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his opening remarks to the constitutional conference on March 15, was extremely candid, and I respected his candour. Upon reviewing his Government's record with regard to aboriginal peoples, he said the following: "If we did not succeed, it was not for lack of trying". I have watched over ten years, and I believe that he has tried. However, he has not tried hard enough. He particularly got off on the wrong foot some ten or 12 years ago. It has taken a long time for him and the Government finally to reach today's debate on this resolution. Perhaps he has tried in the same way he has tried with the other problems we are so remorsefully facing.
At the constitutional conference, a voice rang out long and clear above the din, the voice of the aboriginal people. With their collective voice they were expressing that they do have a resolve as a people. I believe that voice was heard. Television projected it right across the country. I feel that within this Chamber, and within the provincial legislatures, the voice was heard, as well. I hope it was a voice heard with understanding and not just one with sympathy. People in this country will only take notice if we, as politicians in this Chamber and in the provincial legislatures, move forward with understanding, setting in place the kinds of resoltuions and then amendments to our Constitution which will assist our first peoples to have the way of life they desire.
I must admit that the role played by the federal Government in the conference was not the role that I envisaged. As I understand its role, it is to be receptive to the distinct or perhaps divergent interests expressed by the various groups in the regions throughout the country, and then to forge national policy which, while accommodating or taking into consideration the distinct views, will express national priorities that promote the good of all of the country as a whole. That is not what I saw at the constitutional conference.
The Minister mentioned advocacy and the exclusive right of the federal Government to legislate on aboriginal matters. The Government should have brought these groups together to discuss the points of view that were so important to each group. However, the only meetings that took place between the federal Government and the aboriginal people were to discuss agenda items, not to discuss the very basic issues that were to be considered at the constitutional conference, and then take those issues to the provincial Governments. The federal Goverment played only a moderating role. It moderated the discussions which had taken place. The guidance and advocacy by the federal Government which were most clearly needed just were not there. That is why I said at the beginning that I congratulated the aboriginal people for the way in which they were able to deal with the conference.

June 27, 1983
The Constitution
A number of conferences have now been put in place in the Constitution. That is what we are dealing with today, in the main. It is my hope that the process that we watched before the last constitutional conference will be distinctly changed. I believe that is the case. I am certainly advocating much more discussion between the various aboriginal groups and the federal Government on the issues that are to be considered by the constitutional conference before we bring the other participants, the Provinces, down to the actual conference, so that it will not be necessary to ask the same questions which were asked at the last one. That brings me to some other points that I think must be mentioned before the next conference.
The funding of these peoples is very important and is a problem which must be addressed in debate. When the federal Government prepares itself to go to a conference to deal with the issues in a national way, there are no restrictions on the funds that it uses or on the amount of personnel that it draws from various Departments to deal with the issues put forward in position papers. When the Provinces come to a national constitutional conference, they, as well, are under no restrictions. They do everything in their power to present views, to bring forward papers and positions, with the best people that they have in their Provinces. They do not have to adhere to specific budgets. However, when we ask the aboriginal people to put forward their position, to meet sections in the constitutional conference, the Government immediately puts restrictions on the funds. I do not think that there is an argument in the sense that they should have open-ended funding, but surely it should be adequate for them to present their position in a forthright manner, because it is so important to their future and to that of the country. I do not believe that that has taken place and I hope it will be discussed in the committee hearings before we bring this resolution back for final reading in the House.
We have noticed that there are great leaders in Canada amongst the aboriginal people. They are performing very well for their people. 1 watched as they negotiated positions at the constitutional conference. The process must also be very cautious to ensure that, when we are not before the cameras and the public in the negotiating rooms, where some excellent work is being done, the work is recorded properly so that we do not have to have letters, such as the Minister read. The record should be correct so all groups believe the wording can go forward. That happened at the last constitutional conference. I hope the situation can be rectified and a better system established as we move into the next constitutional conference.
I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate today. I feel proud that we, as Canadians, can now discuss constitutional amendments in this Chamber and test our amending formula. We are showing Canadians that the Constitution is not rigid and changes can be made when they are sought.
I am also very pleased that our first change to the Constitution is for the first peoples, of this nation, our aboriginal
peoples. I sincerely hope that we make our best effort to see that this entrenchment is made possible in the proper manner, and that the process can continue not only on behalf of aboriginal people but of all Canadians when there is a desire that it ought to take place.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address the House on this aboriginal rights resolution. 1 am taking this opportunity to speak in the absence of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), who is on the Indian Affairs Committee and has other areas of responsibility in Indian Affairs which he must deal with today. Therefore I am pleased to speak to this resolution in his absence.
I would begin by pointing out that while our Party supports this resolution we do not do so with a sense of celebration or achievement. There remains a great deal to be done since many matters have not been dealt with in this resolution. Up to this point we have achieved a fundamental agreement to continue discussions on defining aboriginal rights. That is an achievement worthy of note in the Canadian context, but we are certainly far from completing the job.
Another accomplishment worthy of note is the affirmation of the existence of aboriginal rights. This is the first time that Canadians, through their Governments and the constitutional process, have affirmed that aboriginal rights exist. We can put that part of the debate behind us and begin to discuss what those aboriginal rights are, and historically to whom those rights belong. However, even that affirmation of aboriginal rights has been tainted by the imposition of the words "existing aboriginal rights" in that clause.
While our Party supports this resolution, we are asking today for a more adequate process of discussing aboriginal rights. First, it is incumbent upon the Government to recognize all aboriginal peoples, whether Inuit, Metis or Indian. In the process of that recognition it is also necessary to recognize the uniqueness of each aboriginal group. This is of particular concern at this point in history to the status Indians in this country because, based on long experience, they are afraid that being included in a larger group of aboriginal peoples rather than as status Indians they will lose even that small amount that they have gained up to this time. Therefore, while recognizing the rights of all aboriginal peoples, it is important also to distinguish between the groups and recognize the uniqueness of each group.
This process could also be enhanced by involving the elected political leaders of the aboriginal people and the elected political leaders of the Canadian people, both provincially and federally, in ongoing discussions. The substance of these discussions should not be simply left to federal civil servants. This would not do sufficient justice to the necessary process of negotiations.
In order for this process to lead to a greater resolution of the problems now facing us, the federal Government should be willing to lay all of its cards on the table prior to First Ministers' conferences. Before any such conference the federal
June 27, 1983

Government should make its positions known sufficiently far in advance so that Indians, Inuit and Metis can study those positions and have an opportunity to give solid and well thought out feedback to the Government. It is not good enough for the federal Government or provincial Governments to take part in the process in a secretive manner. They must put all their cards on the table so that we can have a truly open discussion which will lead to the definition of aboriginal rights.
We must have an ongoing process. We cannot expect substantive negotiations to take place under the glaring TV lights of another First Ministers' conference. We all know that when politicians of whatever political stripe appear before cameras, they tend to posture and play to the audiences from the various constituences. It is crucial that the negotiations leading up to the definition of aboriginal rights continue on an ongoing basis so that the real work can be done before a First Ministers' conference is convened. This would make those conferences move like other meetings between First Ministers or heads of state which are essentially celebrations of agreement or simply the formal signing of agreements that have been negotiated before a conference. It is not good enough to leave the essential work to be done under the TV lights.
Another factor in making this process more adequate for dealing with this question concerns the provision of financial and other resources to various aboriginal groups. In order for true negotiations to take place between the federal and provincial Governments and aboriginal associations, it is absolutely crucial that the aboriginal associations have adequate resources to match those of the bureaucracies that are at the disposal of the federal and provincial politicians.
We all know that in our modern, technological society, knowledge is indeed power. Political leaders gain access to knowledge through their ability to hire experts from various fields and form them into a working team. When a political leader enters into negotiations he will have solid facts with which to back up whatever position he is taking. Therefore, adequate resources are crucial to meaningful negotiations over the definition of aboriginal rights.
Our Constitution is not simply a written document which is displayed as a poster or library artifact. The Constitution of Canada is not simply that document we call the Constitution of Canada, the Canada Act or whatever appellation we give it, having abandoned the notion or the name of the British North America Act; the Constitution obviously is that document and the rules under which we form our Governments. It is also the document by which we govern ourselves on a day to day basis. I mention this because the way we govern ourselves as a nation on a day to day basis colours the perceptions we have of the Constitution and of the Constitution negotiations affecting aboriginal peoples. It provides the context within which the aboriginal peoples come to the constitutional table.
I want to make a couple of references in this respect. First, the Canada Lands Act, the legislative document which virtually gives absolute power to the federal Government in terms of
The Constitution
development of resources in the north, clearly is a constitutional document even though it was brought about through legislative means.
How can we talk about recognizing in a true sense the aboriginal rights of the native people in this country in a context in which we have already given over the governing of the natural resources in the north to the federal Government to its agencies and through that to the large corporations which seek to develop those resources in the north? Clearly, there is no real definition of aboriginal rights, particularly to those people in the north, without some meaningful access to those resources. Until those kinds of legislative actions are changed, then the fine words of an aboriginal bill of rights or of some constitutional document will have very little meaning. Native people know this and it colours the perception of what happens in the constitutional process.
As I said, the Constitution is not just the constitutional document but it sets the way we govern ourselves on a day to day basis. In the way we govern ourselves as a nation we have neglected many and most of the basic human needs of native people whether for housing, education, training or health care. All of these basic human needs have been neglected. Take employment, for example. Even the official employment statistics of Canada do not take into account employment or unemployment on reserves. This is a simple statistical measure of what is going on in the country. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment on the reserves is something in the neighbourhood of 80 per cent or 90 per cent. This applies not only to the reserves but to the Metis communities as well. It is difficult to celebrate historical constitutional agreements in a context in which the vast majority of aboriginal people are unemployed, are suffering from lack of housing, inadequate education or are frustrated in their particular need to develop themselves. But this is the context in which we are discussing the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights.
It is not only important at this moment to call for a more adequate process in terms of how we define aboriginal rights in a document, but it is also important to call for a more adequate process as to how the various governments in Canada go about meeting the needs of aboriginal people. Let me say as well that it is not only native people who have this experience of absence of any real action to meet their needs, but this experience has become common to many Canadians. It is most clearly evident today in the totally unacceptable high levels of unemployment. As we seek to better the constitutional process as it affects the definition of aboriginal rights and as it affects the needs of native people, we must also seek to change and to better the process by which we govern ourselves so that we can meet the needs of all Canadians; for there are many today whose heeds are neglected.
Let me return to the specific substance of the resolution before us. I conclude by saying that it is worthy to note there was an agreement at the federal-provincial level to continue the discussions to seek and to search for a definition of aboriginal rights. It is worth while noting that the next to last meeting of First Ministers was able to reach an agreement as a result of

June 27, 1983
The Constitution
considerable pressure from public opinion that the existence of aboriginal rights must be affirmed. However inadequate these measures have been, it is worthy to note this progress. But we must also at the same time note that a great deal is left to be done. The way we do it is crucial and important. We must call for an effort to do a better job and to do more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to ask questions or make comments? If not, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate briefly in this debate regarding the constitutional accord on aboriginal rights which was agreed to at the First Ministers' aboriginal leaders conference on March 15-16, 1983. As I understand it, this resolution will be sent to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development later today where we will hear some witnesses and deal with the resolution at greater length. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) pointed out earlier this morning, this is the first amendment to the Canadian Constitution to be dealt with by Parliament under the new constitutional amendment formula.
Let me say at the outset that the conference in March was itself an important first step in recognizing the sovereign status of the first nations of this continent. It was encouraging to observe the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Premiers sitting down at the same negotiating table as the leaders of our Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples and to see how well our aboriginal people put forward their views and how well prepared they were. I was encouraged by the reaction of Canadians right across this country who watched this conference on television and commented so positively on the participation of our aboriginal peoples.
This is how it was in our earlier history when our British and French ancestors recognized the first nations of this continent, the Inuit, the Micmac, the Montagnais, the Iroquois, the Ojibway, the Cree, the Bloods, the Sarcee, the Dakotas, the Nishga, the Dene and the Athabaskans, to mention only a few of the first nations who lived on this continent as sovereign nations and as our allies. If we look back at those earlier times when the Europeans first came to this continent and made contact with these nations we will recall they treated our first nations people as their allies and they recognized their great value as allies. This is evident in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and in the treaty making process that was observed in earlier days, just as we have started to do again when representatives of the monarchy met as equals with the leaders of the first nations to negotiate and sign these treaties.
Since last September I have had the good fortune to work with a special committee of this House on Indian self-government. We have heard witnesses from all over this country during the last number of months on subject matters which relate very closely to the subjects discussed in this accord. During the sessions where we heard witnesses on the subject,
one main theme was repeated over and over again, that the aboriginal peoples of the country wanted us to recognize their right to self-government within the Canadian federation. They are not asking us to grant the right to self-government because they feel they have had it for centuries and centuries. They want us to recognize it very dearly, not just in a statement of the Government, not just in an ordinary statute, but in the Constitution where it will be enshrined like other levels of government and protected from changes which might be made through the ordinary legislative process by one government or another that might be elected. They want the same protection for their basic aboriginal rights as the minorities in Canada would like for their human, political and legal rights.
The statement by the Prime Minister at the outset of the conference was extremely important. I will refer to it very briefly. He rejected the idea of assimilation of aboriginal peoples and said that we should work toward establishing distinct institutions and arrangements for aboriginal governments. While several proposals had been made concerning aboriginal government, he said that they varied from group to group, from region to region. Also the Prime Minister indicated in his statement that there was plenty of room for variation in the range of options and full scope for serious discussion. He has gone on record for entrenching these very important rights in the Constitution.
In the Constitution Act, 1981, as was already pointed out by the Minister of Justice, there were certain provisions relating to aboriginal rights. Section 25 gave a certain priority to aboriginal rights over matters in the Constitution and in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 35 recognized and affirmed aboriginal and treaty rights. Section 37 provided for the aboriginal rights conference which took place in March of this year. While those provisions were important, they had certain shortcomings which were pointed out by the leaders of our aboriginal peoples. The inclusion of the word "existing" in Section 35 has left us with a statement that is ambiguous. It is on the agenda for further consideration that that term be removed so that it is a very clear and precise statement with respect to aboriginal and treaty rights.
In addition, the Constitution Act, 1981 made no provision for a consent clause with respect to amendments or some other process whereby aboriginal peoples must be involved in a bilateral process relating to amendments. Finally, the Act did not go into detail or definition on what are aboriginal and treaty rights and how they should be more explicitly defined in the Constitution.
The Accord has dealt with some of these matters and kept others on the agenda. The Accord put forward the agreement that there must be at least three further constitutional conferences to deal with these matters. If we look at the Accord, we will note the types of things which still remain to be done- removal of the word "existing" from Section 35; a preamble which would deal with the general principles relating to
June 27, 1983

aboriginal rights; the definition of aboriginal rights; enforcement of aboriginal rights; the question of the amendment formula; self-government; repeal of Section 42(1 )(e) and Section 42(l)(f); and amendments to Part III regarding equalization and the funding of aboriginal governments. Also the Accord provided for certain specific constitutional amendments, some to Section 25 and others to Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1981. These are principally concerned with the recognition of rights set out in modern land claims or aboriginal claims settlements.
With respect to the process-and the speaker just before me went into some detail on this-I would ask the Government to be more open and more forward in its dealings with aboriginal leaders and that the consultation process be one in which there is openness and frankness in positions and in discussing those positions. I would ask the Government to adopt the spirit which was clear in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and treat these representatives as leaders of people who have been present on this continent for thousands of years, as people who before contact with the Europeans had governments, their own laws, cultures, languages, religions and economies and never willingly gave them up.
This Accord is an important first step, but there is still much to be done. As a Member of Parliament I look forward to working with the Government and my colleagues in the House and getting on with the job.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members who are rising to ask questions? Debate.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments on this important and historic procedure. The conference between the Government of Canada and the Provinces, the constitutional partners, partners in Confederation, together with the Indian people, set in place a process through which age old questions should be answered: what are the rights of our aboriginal people and what is their relationship to the other partners in Confederation, particularly the federal Government?
The resolution reached in March did little else than establish future meetings. Section 25 of the Constitution indicates that our Constitution is not to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal rights or any other rights. The qustion which has been with us for 220 years this coming October concerns what these rights mean. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was very specific about some of these rights, and of course our aboriginal people are saying that the treaties and the negotiations which took place at that time and subsequently were treaties and negotiations that were carried on within or between sovereign partners or equal partners.
Let me quote very briefly one Section of the Royal Proclamation of 1763:
And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our interest and the security of our colonies, that the several nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are connected-
I emphasize the word "nations".
The Constitution
-and who live under our protection, should not be molested, or disturbed in the possession of such parts of our dominions and territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their hunting-grounds; we do therefore, which the advice of our Privy Council, declare it to be our Royal will and pleasure that no Governor or Commander-in-Chief in any of our colonies-
It continues but I do not want to spend too much time quoting these sections. This document founded the courts and is the basis of the argument which aboriginal people have laid before us throughout time in favour and in support of the fact that they have been, and still are in a sense, sovereign people under the protection of the federal Government.
Many different things are expressed in the term "aboriginal rights". By any definition, it clearly means the right to selfdetermination and self-government. This was made known to us in no uncertain terms throughout the hearings of the special task force which travelled across the country over the last year in order to advise the Government on necessary changes to the relationship between the federal Government and the Indian people. It was made clear that it also establishes the trust relationship between the federal Government and the Indian people.
That trust has been the source of much misunderstanding, misinterpretation and controversy. Trust means paternalism, a trustee and a dependent. Paternalism means dependency. It is this trust relationship that has rendered the aboriginal people in this country so dependent on the other forms of government which have taken over throughout the country, with the exception of the land which was set aside directly for the use of Indian people, namely the Indian reserves.
We have begun to look at the term "trust" and have attempted to break it down into different components. First, there is a legal trust, the basis for which is in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and in a number of arrangements and agreements. It is part of the treaties we have entered into with the native people. It is also part of a whole range, about a dozen or so, of international agreements and convenants to which we are signatories in terms of the United Nations and so on. Therefore, there is a legal trust.
Strangely enough, reasoned decisions in our courts would argue that there is no legal trust but rather a political trust which the federal Government has with the Indian people. Not being a lawyer, I find this very strange. How can there be a political trust which is exercised by the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada when the people who are the dependants of this political trust cannot exercise any political power? That is overstating the fact somewhat, but before 1960 Indian people could not vote. They had no exercise of political rights. How can there be a political trust when the dependant has no control over the politician who exercises the trust?
In today's circumstances, Indian people have the right to vote, unlike the apartheid notion which we find so abhorrent in other jurisdictions. Since 960, Indian people in Canada can vote. It took a little longer in Quebec before the right to vote

June 27, 1983
The Constitution
was granted, but that is only 23 years ago. Now they have some political power.
What does this really mean? They are not electing themselves a government because the Secretary of State, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Supply and Services, the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Labour have no jurisdiction over Indians. The Indian people do not elect themselves a government. When they vote in a federal election they elect themselves a trustee, but they have no right to name the person who is to be the trustee. All they can do is name the Government which in turn will appoint their trustee.
The Indian Act rests under the jurisdiction of the Minister in charge of Indian affairs. He is the trustee, the parent. It is on him that the Indian people of this country are dependent. He is the Minister of labour, Minister of health, Minister of education and Minister for all other services which the Indian people receive from the federal Government. Everything is channelled through this Minister, who spends $1.2 billion a year for services to Indian people.
There is no accountability to the Indian people by this Minister. You can argue all you want, Mr. Speaker, but even though the Indian people have the right to vote, they are not equal. That privilege is totally meaningless to them because they are not electing themselves a Government but a trustee, and they have no input as to who that trustee will be.
The trust can be broken down into different categories. There is the certain trust that relates to political rights, the right to vote and all other matters of a political nature. Then there is the trust that relates to the so-called social contract; health care, education, health and safety, housing and so on. There is a third category, a crucial category. It relates to the land and the resources about which the Indian people are arguing and which are guaranteed to them by the Proclamation of 1763. That is their very special right to the land and resources of all of this nation which have not been ceded to any federal or provincial powers or have not been purchased. That is the trust which the federal Government and other Governments have in terms of assuring that Indian people will always have the right to adequate resources plus an adequate land base to pursue their traditional lifestyles.
That is a promise that will be exceedingly difficult to keep. The treaties grant the Indian peoples the right to live their traditional lifestyle-to hunt, fish and gather as long as the grass grows and the wind blows and the sun shines. In a global sense, the land base and the natural resource base in shrinking very dramatically. It will be exceedingly difficult for us to live up to this trust and obligation that we assumed when we entered into the treaties with the Indian people, treaties of peace and friendship, and proclaimed the Royal Proclamation in 1763 ensuring these kinds of rights.
The committee which has been travelling across the country and holding hearings has been looking at all of these matters. There is no doubt that the new approach is crucially important. We have assumed an entirely new obligation through the patriation of the Constitution in terms of coming to grips with the definition of the term "aboriginal rights", what the trusts
mean, how the trusts have been honoured and how the obligations have been satisfied.
It is the work of this committee and the ongoing constitutional conference to come to grips with that. We must restore the rights of Indian peoples, and come to grips with the definition of what these rights mean. Recommendations must be made which will lead to redressing all grievances and the fulfilment of unfulfilled obligations connected with those trusts.
I do not have to state that the social conditions are deplorable. They have earned us the condemnation of people throughout the world. They cannot understand, as I cannot understand, how it is possible to have such an important segment of the population live in such deprived and deplorable conditions. The aboriginal people do have special rights. These rights require a special relationship within Confederation and a special relationship with the federal Government. Indian people, therefore, have not been too excited by the prospect of seeing provincial Premiers sit in on these constitutional talks, because by their interpretation of the covenants and treaties we have entered into and the Royal Proclamation of 1763, it is the federal Government and indeed the Queen herself that is responsible for their rights.
It is the federal Government that has this special trust responsibility and it is the federal Government that is responsible for them in the sense of a "dependent nation status", so to speak. This is a term that is used in other countries, such as the United States where the idea of a domestically independent nation is entrenched in the Constitution. This gives Indian nations, for example the Navahoes, a sovereign jurisdiction within a certain framework of powers and jurisdictions, but makes them dependent on the Government of the United States for a number of things that a small and weak nation cannot look after for itself.
The courts in Canada have been mute on this subject. It has not been tested in the courts to the satisfaction of the Indian people and thee is very little jurisprudence to assist the ongoing constitutional talks and committee discussions in defining these terms. However, it is clear that the term "aboriginal rights" as it is now entrenched in the Constitution must be defined in future, not only by the courts but also through the political process.
There is no doubt in my mind that Parliament and the Government has a role to play in defining the term "aboriginal rights". What does the term mean? How will it help us to redress some of the injustices of the past? How will it help the native people of this land to achieve a standard of living and self-determination which is equitable and fair and comparable to the standards enjoyed by the rest of us in this land which is blessed with such riches and favour?
These are just a few thoughts, Mr. Speaker, that I have had on the subject. As you know, we are very much in favour of having this process accelerated and having these matters dealt
June 27, 1983

with in a most expedient manner. There is no doubt that the Indian people have a right to participate in the process that will lead to the necessary changes. There is no doubt in anyone's mind today that we must break down the paternalistic system which has rendered the native people so dependent on the white man's institutions and culture, which is in many cases alien to their own traditions and cultures. There is no doubt that Indian people must be given equity even in terms of the covenants that have been signed and the international standards to which we have agreed.
We must come to grips with the fact that Indian people have certain rights which are in addition to those that we enjoy in a democratic and free nation. These rights, of course, relate to their aboriginal rights, to the fact that the Indian people were here 8,000 years ago as we now know. At that time they had a system of self-government with their own culture and religion. The white man did not discover a virgin land. The land was populated by people with their own institutions which in most cases functioned well. These people have never surrendered the right to the land which they possessed since time immemorial, nor did they surrender the right to look after their affairs and therefore the right to self-government.
We look forward with some anxiety and with a spirit of cooperation to these talks which will begin again certainly within one year of March 16, 1983, and we in this Party have prepared ourselves to make whatever contribution possible to bring these talks to a just, reasonable and expedient conclusion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any Hon. Members rising to ask questions? The the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen).


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I know there are other Hon. Members who want to participate in this debate so my comments will be short. 1 hope to be allowed to add something to the debate today.
The Minister has indicated that as this is the first proposed amendment to the Constitution, it will be an historic occasion. I would agree with him that it will be an historic occasion, but only if the federal and provincial Governments are prepared to follow through on what is held out at the present time as great promise.
In my view, there is much in the proposed amendment to encourage native peoples but there are many things to discourage them. I would hope that the native peoples particularly would not lose patience as we in the House sometimes lose patience with the slowness by which things happen. It is probably presumptuous of me to suggest that they must have patience, because if any group has displayed that particular trait, it has been the native peoples who over the years have seen many of their rights taken away as a result of legislation like the War Measures Act and as a result of an unthinking white population that moved into areas in which they had no particular jurisdiction and no particular right.
I believe I was fortunate because very early in my childhood my parents saw fit to point out to me that our native peoples, particularly those in northern Ontario as I am from the Sudbury area, took such pride in their heritage. Hardly one
The Constitution
occasion went by where the natives were not present putting their particular culture, their dances and their religion, on display. They taught us much about their language and the respect they had for themselves, and particularly the respect they had for their environment. So I grew up with a profound respect for our native peoples.
Subsequent to that, when I left high school I had the opportunity to live in the Northwest Territories for a couple of years where I met Inuit and northern Indian populations. Here again, if for no other reason than sheer survival, they were able to carve out for themselves a livelihood, something that we would have been hard pressed to do without the talents and skills and dedication that they brought to that particular project.
Having grown up with that kind of respect for these people, it was only natural that when 1 first came to Parliament I saw fit to serve as a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I could detect at almost each and every meeting of that Committee the frustration experienced by people who came before us when we would say to them: "Yes, we want to change that Section in the Indian Act that discriminates against women; yes, we want to do something but we have agreed that we will not amend the Indian Act until the whole of the Indian Act is changed." So many of the wishes and aspirations of the native peoples were crushed as a result of delay. This is one of those things that illustrates the phrase "justice delayed is justice denied".
We now have an opportunity to show good faith, and I hope that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the First Ministers meet, the good feeling that is shared by all in the Chamber here today will be evident. Everybody wants to do that which is right. I hope we will see fit to do so.
I would say to the native peoples that they must remember that we are often dealing with a constituency that has no sense of history and, unhappily and all too often, very little knowledge of history. So the people of this constituency judge a situation as the result of what happened to them last week, or something they saw occur two years ago, or a bad experience as a result of one dealing with a native person. Their whole decision making process is framed around that particular type of criteria rather than the criteria of history. The history of Canada should move every Canadian person to do a little studying and reading about the splendid history of our native peoples.
I do not want to misquote, but I believe one of the Catholic Orders said something to the effect that it is better to light a candle than to stand and curse the darkness. While individual Members of Parliament, to their credit, have been lighting those candles across the country, 1 want to say a particular word of appreciation to the late Hon. Bob Andras who had a very short stint as Minister responsible for Indian Affairs. The statements he made 14 or 15 years ago when he held that portfolio gives some sense of the feeling he had for the native peoples and how he was trying to hurry up the process before it

June 27, 1983
The Constitution
became "too late", in his words. He gave us a springboard from which we were able to launch what is taking place today.
I do not think any of us who were in the House when the late Hon. Arthur Laing was here will forget the sense of frustration that he felt all too often when he was prepared to give local autonomy, when he was prepared to make money available and when he visited individual reserves and said: "We have to find the money to do this. We will worry about the jurisdiction later but let us get the work done. This is what the local people want so let us find the money for it." He was the kind of Minister who took the initiative.
The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) is a former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and he has not set down the torch. He is not the kind of individual to back away from a tough assignment even when it seems particularly unpopular. I am proud to call him an associate because his heart and his mind are set on helping the people. He does not do this in a grandfatherly or patronizing way but almost as one of our native peoples. It is a pleasure to count him as a colleague in the House of Commons.
As individual Members of Parliament we must take care that abuses do not occur that would dispel the good feeling that exists in the House today. I think particularly of the War Measures Act which was used in the 1940s to move the Chippewas of the Kettle Point reserve from a great piece of property on to a very small piece of property. They were paid chicken feed for the property and some of the money they were paid was used to cover the expenses of the move. That was clearly an injustice and it took almost 40 years for the Chippewas of Sarnia and of Kettle Point to right that particular wrong. I do not think it can ever be corrected, Mr. Speaker. If it took 40 years to correct that, we can understand the frustration in the native community. Let us give them the local autonomy that Arthur Laing spoke of, but we must also give them a sense of meaningful participation in the discussions to be held in the future.
I hope the Ministers will commit themselves to making at least one major change on behalf of our native peoples at each conference. Only in this way will they be able to show good faith. It is not good enough to have one meeting and agree to have another. We are saying to the native people that we want to do something to right so many of these wrongs. We can only do this if the Ministers make the commitment to the native peoples that they will make certain that such and such a thing is done, not that they will have another meeting.
The native peoples have an awesome responsibility to make reasonable claims. I am not certain that I can define the word "reasonable". They must recognize that in order to get something through the political process, the moderates have to be convinced. If they are not moderate in their approach, they will lose the support of the people who want to help but who are at present sitting on the fence wondering which way to fall.
If they are given something they can hold on to it will be easier to get things done in the future.
Money must be made available, of course. The Member of the New Democratic Party who spoke mentioned that research funds must be made available. In this day and age no one can operate without funding and the money must be made available to the native peoples as a right. It should not be suggested that there is a conflict of interest as a result of the federal Government or the provincial Government making funds available; the money should have been available to the native peoples a long time ago. If they are to be able to hire people to do the proper research and to set forth the changes that they want, then the money must be there for them.
The bands must take concerted action. It has often been complained that the native people cannot make up their minds because one group says one thing and another group says another. Of course they have different approaches, Mr. Speaker. They must make an effort toward a concerted approach, however, with the understanding that when there is a B.C. problem, a northern Ontario problem or a northern Canada problem, someone will take the initiative and the leadership. A concerted approach will be effective. If the demands are seen by the moderates in Canadian society as being strident, they will not be as effective. A concerted approach will receive support and backing on all sides of the House and then perhaps we can do something which perhaps should have been done more than 100 years ago.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to Canada's Constitution which is before us today, has my support and I am pleased to say a few words in support of it and to offer advice on the direction that should be taken within the Department and also in preparation for the next conference.
I think it is important to call to mind the event which led us to this juncture in our history. The Special Committee on the Constitution, after much discussion, debate and compromise, agreed to incorporate into the proposal at that time an amendment which became known as the aboriginal rights amendment. Because of the lack of time today, I will not go into the history of the events that surrounded that amendment after the resolution left the Committee. Suffice it to say that, through the leadership of the aboriginal people of Canada, their supporters, and I would say the underlying goodwill and sense of fair play of many Canadians, the aboriginal rights amendment was placed back in the resolution. That was necessary and I am pleased that it took place. That event has allowed us to take what are sometimes faltering steps forward in the recognition of the rights of Canada's aboriginal citizens.
The amendment before us today does the following things, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I believe it reaffirms the entrenchment of aboriginal rights, if it needed the reaffirmation. What is needed in preparation for future conferences is discussion and a great measure of patience. All too often I think there has been a lack of patience in the dealings that take place between the aboriginal peoples, the Department of Indian Affairs and
June 27, 1983

Northern Development and various federal Governments. Despite the length of time that has elapsed in dealing with matters relating to the aboriginal peoples, patience and understanding have been lacking not only between the partners who were negotiating, but often in the larger Canadian community.
What is needed is an explanation of what is happening in terms of this amendment and, equally important, what is happening in the community of Canadians of aboriginal descent. Personally, I am enthusiastic about some of the changes I see. The stereotype image of Canada's aboriginal peoples, which unfortunately is still resident in the minds of many Canadians, must be changed. 1 suggest that this is the task not only of the Indian leadership but also of Parliamentarians.
I want to emphasize again that the underlying factor for Canada's aboriginal peoples, the so-called people with status, is set out in Section 91.1 want to urge the federal Government and the aboriginal people to see to it that the federal responsibility as its relates to Section 91 and the Indian people of Canada remains intact. That is of paramount importance in any discussion of future changes. What this amendment does, Mr. Speaker, is put forward the fact that there will be conferences held at regular periods of time, not only to have discussion, but I hope to put the imprint of approval on discussions which took place before the conference. I am convinced, as I view federal-provincial conferences, that it is much more important to put the imprimatur on past discussions and decisions rather than it being a conference held in the light of the media where bargaining is taking place right there on the floor. We are now at a juncture where I believe we have defined at least the parameters of the areas which need discussion. What we now need to do is define the issues. I believe the First Ministers' conference, along with the aboriginal leadership, as is called for in this amendment, could verify those discussions and that preparatory work. However, I do not believe that this House is correct in emphasizing only constitutional amendments.
During the period of the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the concentration which our Government placed on aboriginal people centered around some very practical manifestations of the fact that there must be examples or models of success, in order to start to change the stereotype which was so resident among many Canadians. The emphasis must be, surely, that while constitutional amendments are of value, while these issues are of vital importance-and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has given much leadership, for instance, on the question of Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act-there are matters which other Canadians take for granted in their daily lives which have to be addressed by the Department. These are decent housing; education-how can we talk about a future for Canadians if we do not stress the opportunity for education-jobs and the self-reliance and independence which comes from jobs; and opportunities, identified not always paternalistically by the Department but
The Constitution
rather by the Indians, its leadership and its people. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe, if these conferences are to be a success, between now and those dates we must show the larger Canadian community that there are models of success, that there are good things happening among Canada's Indian community.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that there would be that kind of attitude within the Department of Indian Affairs, as I hope will be recommended by the committee on self-government. I would like to commend the members of that committee, as well as the chairman, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). I do not sit on that committee, but generally we on this side of the House would agree on the type of leadership being given to that committee in trying to resolve problems and give advice to this House. My colleague the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and my colleague the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellengerger) are Hon. Members who have spent a lot of time trying to address the real issues, not only of selfgovernment but how in a practical day to day manifestation can the aboriginal people of Canada take over the same levers of leadership which the rest of us take for granted in the communities in which we live. That has been the focus of these Hon. Members and I commend them for it. Therefore, if I can give any advice, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the members of the Department of Indian Affairs would look at the kind of direction which the committee on self-government is giving, not as a threat to the Department but rather as an opportunity to Canadians.
1 would hope that the Department would not look upon these efforts as being a threat to dismantle the Department. I am one who has been in charge of that Department for a period of time and I am absolutely convinced that we can largely reduce both the cost of administration and the size of that Department. If we truly believe in self-government, let us give it to the leadership which the Indian people are developing. Of course, there are risks, but let us do it. Let us not procrastinate any longer.
What is happening is that there are two towers of bureaucracy which have developed. One is the traditional Department of Indian Affairs bureaucracy. As the Indian leadership is developing, so is their administration developing. We have these twin towers of administration which now must be sustained. However, we will never, I suggest, have sufficient funding for housing, for education and for economic development if we sustain these two bureaucratic towers. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, let us take some of these risks. I hope over the next period of time before the next conference that the practical matter will be addressed as to how we can not only better serve Canadians of aboriginal descent, but that these people can take their rightful place in leading their own people.
The other piece of advice I would like to give to the federal Government is to suggest that it take its role seriously. At the next conference the Federal Government should not act only as chairman but should act under the responsibilities of Section 91. It should tell Canadians and Canadian Indian leaders what the Government's position is and how it sees its relationship to Canada's emerging Indian leadership. If that is done, then I

June 27, 1983
The Constitution
believe the amendment which we are today hopefully passing will be the harbinger of changes which all of us want to see in that community.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate for me to say a few words in a speech as opposed to a question or a response?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been recognized.
2020;-1 Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) for allowing me to say a few brief words on what is becoming a most historical day for Canada's aboriginal people. I would like to encourage the Government to consider three or four points when it returns once again to the table with the leadership of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I believe the Government should lay out its position clearly before the conference so that the participants of the conference will have a clear understanding of how the federal Government of Canada perceives the next number of years of this transition period.
I believe there is still a considerable amount of confusion in the minds of aboriginal people in terms of understanding clearly the present position of the federal Government, and just where the federal Government sees this process moving in the next number of years as the inevitable dismantling of the Department of Indian Affairs takes place.
I would like also to encourage the federal Government, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the differences, when it comes to concerns over aboriginal rights, between the Metis and Inuit peoples. It should recognize that not only are their concerns different, but they come to the table with different histories and different concepts of what their role in the future may be in terms of their rights.
I would like as well to encourage the Government to be sensitive to the concerns of native women's groups when it comes to discussing the concept of aboriginal rights. Too often we have seen their concerns ignored or perhaps glossed over during these very important discussions.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage the federal Government to ensure that the various players during this very important period of time have adequate funds for the preparation of their submissions so that, indeed, we can ensure that the highest quality of discussion takes place at these ongoing and most important meetings coming up in the immediate future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m., pursuant to Order made Thursday, June 23, 1983, the motion is deemed to be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, the six and five program was supposed to be a two-edged sword. Wages would be restricted to an increase of 6 per cent, but so would the price of goods and services; especially, the services provided by the Government directly or through agencies or funded programs.
Let us consider how university students, 500,000 strong across Canada, fared with the six and five program. Postsecondary education was one of the first victims of Government spending cutbacks. Over $100 million was sliced from the federal transfer payment in 1983. The shortfall must be recovered from private contributions and tuition fees.
This is what happened. In July, 1982, the then Secretary of State said that any increase in tuition fees would be held to the 6 per cent cap because of governmental funding. He was wrong. In Nova Scotia, university tuition fees increased on a range from 12 per cent to 16 per cent. Now Canadian university students face a second round of tuition fee increases for the 1983-84 academic year. Instead of the promised 5 per cent, some universities have already scheduled increases of 17 per cent and more; and additional expense of $150 or more for each student.
This financial burden is imposed in the face of alarming statistics related to student and youth unemployment. The Government is not only breaking its six and five promise, but it will also be throwing away the key to the future of many young Canadians.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, this morning the Government announced a new program of affirmative action in the federal Public Service and federal Crown corporations. It announced, as well, a commission of inquiry to investigate and recommend most effective forms of its implementation. In view of this announcement, I rise today in order to highlight a matter which the Government sees as a central priority of its concern. The matter relates to the status of women in Canada.
June 27, 1983

The Government is committed to enhancing the role of women in all facets of our society. It is an ongoing and ever present commitment, clearly and unequivocally perceived. In order to ensure that this ongoing process is maintained and, indeed, strengthened, I propose the following. In view of the fact that 90 per cent of all legislation introduced into this House has a direct impact on women, and in view of the fact that all Cabinet documents now include a provision requiring status of women consideration, I propose a recommendation of the House to the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures. This recommendation would constitute the requirement that all terms of reference under which parliamentary standing committees, special committees and subcommittees operate, address and provide for status of women considerations.
It is my view, and one with which all of us in the House cannot help but concur, that this additional focus on the legislative impact on Canadian women will go a long way toward meeting the Government's commitment to true gender equality in all facets of Canadian life.



NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, it is not an exaggeration to say that today unemployment is the greatest threat to peace and stability in our society. It harms not only individuals but their families and communities as well. In an attempt to confront the problem, the federal government created the NEED Program. But this program has had little effect on Indian communities where unemployment soars as high as 90 per cent. It is in communities such as these where the NEED Program is most urgently required, yet it is precisely these communities that benefit least from it.
For example, wages for employees paid through the Department of Employment and Immigration are not to exceed $800 per month worked. Status Indians cannot, however, receive over $500 of NEED monies per month worked. This amounts to $300 less per month than the sum allotted to non-Indians. If this is not discrimination, I don't know what is!
Moreover, projects approved on Indian reserves are required to follow accounting, administrative, and monthly reporting procedures established for the initiative. This monthly accounting requirement, established by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, is substantially more onerous than that for projects approved through the Department of Employment and Immigration.
Thus, in Indian communities where unemployment is a potentially more hazardous problem than in non-Indian communities, less money has been made available to individuals, and greater obstacles to the initiation and management of work projects have been created.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 21.1 want to draw the attention of the House to the historic date last Saturday, namely, June 25, when 15 years ago, in 1968, 24 Members of Parliament were first elected to sit in this Chamber. The Class of '68 includes Party Leaders, Ministers, Privy Councillors from all three political Parties, chief Government Whips on both sides of the House, Deputy Chairmen of Committees, Parliamentary Secretaries, and Chairmen of many important House and caucus committees, all in all, a very distinguished and outstanding group of parliamentarians.
Likewise, the Right Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) was first elected as Prime Minister on June 25, 1968, and has served in that role these past 15 years, but for a brief nine-month sabbatical.
This has been a period of tremendous development for our country-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Brydon Foster: -in which many historic milestones-


Mr. Lewis:: And the deficit.


Maurice Brydon Foster: -have been achieved by Canadians, by this Parliament and by this Government, which will ensure a better and brighter future for our children.


Mr. Blenkarn:: And a $130 billion debt.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I know that all Members of the House will want to note this historic date and the outstanding contribution made to this-


Mr. Paproski:: Name them all.


Maurice Brydon Foster: -to this country by the Class of '68.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, today we have learned that the Government of France has exploded a neutron bomb on an atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The French Defence Minister, Charles Hernu, told the Western German magazine, Der Spiegel, that if French President Francois Mitterand wishes production of the neutron bomb to begin, such production could begin immediately. I am raising this matter today because I want the House to know that we in this Party are opposed to this action by the French Government.
Plans by the United States to produce neutron bombs were shelved a number of years ago by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter but, in 1981, President Ronald Reagan decided

June 27, 1983
to go ahead with the neutron bomb. We in the NDP have condemned the American decision on this weapon, the so-called capitalist bomb, which is designed to kill people in scenes of mass carnage but to leave real estate intact.
We are opposed to U.S. defence plans which create more and more lethal and sneakier methods of destruction, just as we oppose plans by the Soviet Union which contribute to the arms race and to the numbers of weapons on this earth. Over all, we are critical of any Government which engages in the testing of nuclear weapons with a view to production and deployment. So it follows that the French Government is not immune from our attacks.
Let the record show that the NDP condemns this testing of the neutron bomb by France and that we are opposed also to the MX missile, the SS-20, the Trident, the Cruise, and whatever new systems may be devised. We are opposed to weapons of destruction of any kind, and believe wholeheartedly-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



THE HUMAN RACE


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the end of the second millennium is fast approaching. The year 2000 A.D. represents
2,000	years of the Christian era and will be a monumental landmark in the recorded history of mankind.
As a citizen of Canada and of the international community, I am concerned that our country should give considerable thought to how we might best utilize the year 2000 to try to resolve the recognized problems which continue to confront mankind, and to determine what solutions would best ensure that, barring natural occurences beyond man's control, the human race will continue to survive and evolve. With this end in mind, I feel that the Government of Canada should encourage the other nations of the world to work together to set goals both, at the national and international levels, focusing on improving the human condition by the year 2000. Such goals should include the establishement of suitable projects to be completed by the year 2000, both nationally and through cooperative efforts of countries around the world. One need only to reflect on such historic events as the eradication of smallpox to appreciate the symbolism.
A recommended project would be disinfecting contaminated drinking water which now exposes 600 million people to waterborne disease in depressed areas of the world. In the Third World, construction of drinking water and sewage systems would be expected to halve the incidents of disease such as typhoid, dysentery, cholera, and schistomiasis. Large-scale global efforts of this type could help to restore confidence in the international community and mankind over-all.



THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, the Library of Parliament in my opinion is one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. I also believe that Canadians can be proud of the history surrounding the Library.
Until recently the Library of Parliament published and distributed a very worth-while pamphlet for its visitors. It is very sad to find that the publication has ceased to be available. I would suggest that the Government provide funds to make the publication available once again.
On many occasions I have had the opportunity to take visitors from my constituency to the Library of Parliament. In my observation, they have never abused the availability of those pamphlets. They have requested extra copies to take home to their families or to their schools.
I would suggest that a Government which can find money to print an embossed invitation to a six and five birthday party should certainly be able to find enough funds to enable the Library of Parliament to continue to make available this pamphlet on what I consider to be a very beautiful and historic building here in Ottawa.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, over the past few weeks we have heard reports from a number of economic policy and forecasting institutions predicting massive levels of youth unemployment over the next several years. Most recently, Thomas Maxwell, head of the Conference Board of Canada, predicted that Canadian youth will face an unemployment rate of over 20 per cent in the next decade.
In May of this year there were 633,000 men and women between 15 and 24 years of age out of work. This represents 21.4 per cent of the workforce, an increase of 14,000 over the previous month. One of every five students who planned to return to school cannot find a job to help pay for it. Graduating students are forced to accept seasonal or part-time work, if they can find a job at all. The federal Government's feeble response is a youth job-creation program that will create fewer jobs than last year.
In the last fiscal year, federal, provincial and municipal Governments spent a total of $12 billion on education in Canada. We have encouraged youth to invest in education and career training-yet the Government and leadership of this country refuse to follow through with the long range economic planning necessary to make jobs a reality and not just a dream.
June 27, 1983

Youth and students want to work and want to contribute. They only need a reasonable opportunity to do so. The present Government offers them only fewer jobs and an economic situation which pushes them more and more into the stigma of welfare. The high rate of youth unemployment represents the unnecessary squandering of a precious national resource.



INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRAT UNION


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, last Friday's launching of the International Democrat Union, an association of 22 Conservative and like-minded parties from 14 European countries together with Canada, the United States, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand proved a most important event for all those who believe in individual rights, the rule of law, and a free market economy.
The I.D.U. represents some 150 million people throughout the free world who, in the words of the Canadian Leader of the Opposition in his address to the world leaders there assembled, including Vice President George Bush of the United States, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, and West German Chancellor Helmet Kohl, hold that liberty is best preserved through less bureaucratic regimentation, less state intervention, less centralization, and more reliance on the capacity of individuals to think, to reason, and to act for themselves.
With these principles in mind the International Democrat Union looks forward to bringing about economic prosperity both to the developed and to the developing nations of the world, as the future surely belongs to the free democracies.


Madam Speaker:: Order.



SUPPORT URGED FOR DONATION OF BODILY ORGANS

Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, many Canadians are alive today because of tissue and organ donation programs. There is, however, a serious shortage of organs needed for transplant operations. As the public becomes more aware of the possibilities for cure, and with spectacular medical breakthroughs happening more frequently today than ever before, it seems inevitable the demand for organs will increase.
In Ontario alone an average of 200 kidneys are donated and subsequently transplanted each year. As of May 25 there were more than 200 people waiting for kidney transplants. An average of 500 corneal transplants are performed each year in Ontario. By the end of April, 200 such transplant operations had already been undertaken and 78 people were still waiting.
Oral Questions
At the end of May, 90 children were being treated for pituitary dwarfism at the Hospital for Sick Children.
There is a proven need for organ donors in this country. Presently, people may voluntarily sign donor cards. In all but one of the ten Provinces, that is PEI, the consent form is on the back of a driver's licence. Ontario, however, is the only Province having a government sponsored central information agency.
A recent Gallup Poll indicated only 21 per cent of Canadians have signed organ donation cards. It is very important that the remaining 79 per cent of Canadians understand the serious shortage of organs for transplant and the opportunity they have, at no cost to themselves, to give a magnificent gift of a whole life to the many who wait for their help. We here as Members of Parliament, and all the men and women across Canada, can give this gift by signing the backs of our drivers' licences, or by signing a donor card available through our family doctors.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS

Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a delegation from the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, headed by its Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Sir Lynden O. Pindling.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Government is continually patting itself on the back for restraint. However, Government spending rose by almost 16 per cent in 1982-83 over the previous year. This was the first year of the famous six and five program. How does the Minister account for that kind of increase when Old Age Security, family allowances, and wages paid to low income civil servants were held strictly to the six and five level?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's statement was not quite accurate. Old Age Security payments were set at 6 per cent, but the Hon. Member will remember that the Guaranteed Income Supplement was fully indexed. For senior citizens needing the Guaranteed Income Supplement, they benefited from the full indexation relating to the cost of living.

June 27, 1983
Oral Questions
The same thing is true for parents receiving the Child Tax Credit. In fact there was a $50 increase per child in the Child Tax Credit for families with lower incomes.
The Hon. Member might also remember that the federal Government contributed several hundreds of millions of dollars to the unemployment insurance fund. These are only a few of the programs which saw large increases resulting from the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians were in need of support at that particular time.
Finally, I would have to remind my hon. friend that the whole area of health support to the Provinces was fully indexed also. The cost of medicare and hospital insurance was not subject to six and five. These are some of the factors that explain the total increase in Government expenditures last year.


INQUIRY RESPECTING IMPACT ON SENIORS AND STUDENTS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, the Minister completely ignored the question, so I will phrase it in another way. When the non-discretionary items such as unemployment insurance, public debt charges, and transfers to individuals and Provinces are removed, the Government's spending record is even worse. When those factors are removed, it goes up 20 per cent. Can the Minister explain to senior citizens, parents, and college students why the restraint program is being fought on their backs and their backs alone?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but my hon. colleague must have exclusive access to some very special kind of statistics.
Once again, if the Hon. Member would take the trouble to examine the figures for public spending during the past year, he will realize that a whole series of federal programs aimed at helping Canadians who need help most were not subject to the 6 and 5 ceiling and were fully indexed. The Canadian Government did not put any restrictions on the amount it transfers to the Provinces under hospital insurance or medical insurance programs. Assistance for postsecondary education was not capped at 6 and 5 during the past year but will be in 1983 and 1984. The same applies to a host of other programs, including unemployment insurance, as I said before. I also mentioned a very considerable increase in direct job creation programs. If he would care to look at the budget for the Department of Employment and Immigration, my hon. colleague would realize that we have added well over one billion dollars for assistance to young people and adults who were having trouble finding jobs this year and last year.
Those are the main reasons why our expenditures have increased, and my hon. colleague has already referred to the fact that we had to pay higher interest payments on the public debt.


INCREASE IN PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, if the Minister does not like my statistics, he might try this one. The Financial and Economic Policies Branch in the Minister's own Department employed 674 people a year ago. This year it employs 758, and next year it will employ 809 employees.
Our research indicates that average annual salaries have risen more than six and five in two-thirds of the federal Departments referred to in the Main Estimates. In fact in one-quarter of these Departments there has been an increase of over 10 per cent in average annual salaries. How can the Minister claim success for the Government's six and five program when, in fact, the Government itself has failed miserably itself to practise restraint? When will the Minister start practising what he and his colleagues preach?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will realize that this Government has put forward a Bill to Parliament limiting to six and five the increases in the Public Service. That Bill was passed by Parliament, not only for checks but as a matter of fact for senior civil servants whose increases were even less than that. In some cases there were no increases at all.


An Hon. Member:: That is phoney.


Marc Lalonde: This Government put forward that Bill before Parliament. It was passed by Parliament. It has been implemented by this Government;-


Mr. Stevens:: Admit it is a fraud.


Marc Lalonde: -the law of Parliament is being implemented. The net effects have shown in the fact that we have been a situation whereby the provincial Governments have rallied to the leadership of the federal Government, as well as the municipalities and the private sector, and we have reached a situation where inflation in this country, which was 12 per cent, in May 1982 is now 5.4 per cent. This is a remarkable record.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You can thank Reagan for that.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister requested time tomorrow, Tuesday evening, from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to make an address? If so, what is the amount of time which the Prime Minister has requested or has been allotted? When can we
June 27, 1983

expect the Prime Minister to unburden himself in the House of Commons rather than having him pretend that Parliament no longer exists?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, it is correct to say that my office has requested time from the public broadcasting system tomorrow night, I believe some 15 minutes or so. I have decided that perhaps one period of 15 minutes is sufficient. I will not ask for three this time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -because I have been answering so many questions in the House of Commons on this subject that I think the Canadian public will get the point I am making in 15 minutes, the point being that the Canadian people have cooperated with the six and five program to the point where it has been a success, and within one year we have brought inflation down, without compulsory economic controls, from 12 per cent to 5.4 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that we would gladly put aside 15 minutes of House time after three o'clock, and he can make that statement in the House.


REQUEST THAT LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION BE GIVEN EQUAL TIME
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I have a question, Madam Speaker, for the Minister responsible for the CBC. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is receiving special and preferential treatment, will the Minister make a representation to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation so that the Leader of the Opposition may have equal time to reply to the Canadian people, as would be his just right?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is asking a purely rhetorical question. He knows full well that the principles governing this type of address have been clearly set out in a policy statement made by the President of the CBC not too long ago.


GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the last number of days he has been very vocal in identifying the various signs of recovery. I must agree with the Prime Minister that many people in Canada have made some very major sacrifices over the last number of months to be able to participate in a
Oral Questions
recovery program in their own way. I might say it had little to do with the Government's six and five program.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: But in their own way, they made a great deal of sacrifice.
As a result the purchasing power for most Canadians has been eroded as their wage and salary settlements came in lower than the rate of inflation. However, one group has stood above this, namely, the corporate sector. When will the Minister of Finance approach the corporate sector of this country whose average settlements this past year have been in excess of 8 per cent, far above the rate of inflation? When will that sector be asked to sacrifice rather than simply give the rhetoric attached to restraint? When is the Minister going to ask for some action from this group?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I invite my hon. friend to read my speeches to the BCNI, the Business Council on National Issues, and to the Canadian Manufacturers Association. I addressed those very issues in both instances. I invited the business sector to be very careful in exercising restraint in the year to come. I was very, very clear in that regard, and I invite my hon. friend to read those speeches. He will find that in the last two months I have probably served more admonitions on the business sector than on labour in that particular regard.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I distinctly remember the Prime Minister in one of his previous addresses asking the banks to bleed a little bit. I wonder if that will be the same reaction from the executives of Canada in their response to the Minister's statement.


SMALL BUSINESS-EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. It relates to the small business sector of this country which is still not seeing any recovery in its own areas. The small business sector is still experiencing escalating bankruptcies and is having to lay off personnel. It is simply struggling to survive. Yet the financiers upon whom small business depends are now experiencing increases in profits over last year of nearly 40 per cent. Is the Minister of Finance going to do anything about the chartered banks of Canada which are permitted to make profits in excess of 38 per cent to 40 per cent over last year, while small business is struggling to survive? Is the Minister of Finance going to do anything with regard to that problem, or is he simply going to turn a blind eye to that sector of our economy, a sector that plays such a critical role in any recovery?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, far from turning a blind eye on the small business sector, the last budget of April 19 was fundamentally geared to help small and medium-sized business. Most measures contained in that budget have a special bias in favour of small business. I

June 27, 1983
Oral Questions
remind my hon. friend that the provisions having to do with the investment tax credit, and the provisions having to do with business losses were all proposed, with some measures that were more favourable to small and medium-sized business than to large business. These measures have been in effect since the budget was approved. I hope to be able to bring in the legislation implementing those changes in the fall, and I hope my hon. friend's Party will be very eager to support these measures.
As far as the analysis which my hon. friend is making of the situation is concerned, I think again his analysis is very selective, since the information I have from spokesmen for the small business sector is to the effect that things have been turning around for them. Indeed, there are still bankruptcies, but you have a very large number of new small businesses being created, and thanks to the lower rate of inflation and the lower rate of interest that we now have, the situation of small business is improving daily, contrary to what my hon. friend has been saying.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister concerning his upcoming television address. About 200 years ago in the British House of Commons, Edmund Burke, then a Member of Parliament and a great Conservative, said-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -that "equality was the essential principle of justice." Today in the House we gave examples of inequality in the Government's program. These were the profits of banks and corporate sector salaries. But the biggest inequality of all is the two million people who are unemployed.
Does the Prime Minister agree that a recovery based on inequality is no recovery at all, and that for the people who are unemployed and will be unemployed, according to his figures, for a long time we do not really have any kind of economic recovery going on at all based upon the principle of equality?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if Edmund Burke had been faced with an opposition which so tortured statistics as the Hon. Member is doing, I am sure he would have taken to television too.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER ANNOUNCE DATE OF CENTRAL NOVA BY-ELECTION
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will he inform the House today of the date which has been set for the by-election in Central Nova?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to do that. I intend discussing the matter with my colleagues in Cabinet this week or next.


REQUEST THAT DATE BE ANNOUNCED BEFORE SUMMER RECESS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. He will recall saying on June 13, 1983, as reported at page 26280 of Hansard, "I hope he", meaning Mr. Mulroney, "will be entering" the House "regularly, and that his Party will soon find occasion to permit him to contest a seat so that we can enjoy his presence also as a Member in the House of Commons." I believe it was on June 22 that the Hon. Member for Central Nova tendered his resignation. On that same day the seat was declared vacant. The Prime Minister knows that the final action remains with him. Can he assure us that before we rise on June 30 for the summer recess he will set the date for the by-election in Central Nova so as to give the Leader of the national Progressive Conservative Party an opportunity to win a seat in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong. The final action does not rest with me. It rests with the electors, perhaps those of Central Nova, who will be in a position to decide whether or not Mr. Mulroney will be sitting in this House.


Erik Nielsen: I find that answer rather petty.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PARLIAMENTARY TRADITION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that, pursuant to our traditions in this place, the Prime Minister usually takes the earliest possible moment to permit a leader of a national Party in the circumstances in which Mr. Mulroney is at present to win a seat in the House. It has happened in his own Party in the past, and it happened with Mr. Stanfield under his predecessor. Can we not have a direct answer to the question? Simply, will he announce the date of that by-election before we recess on June 30?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member declares it to be petty that I say the electorate of Central Nova or some other constituency would decide whether or not a man or woman would sit in the House of Commons.
June 27, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that is the view of the electorate held by the Hon. Member for Yukon, then I am not surprised he would judge my answer to be petty.
As to the tradition, the Hon. Member was able to quote one case. I cannot remember whether it was within days or weeks, but certainly it was reasonably soon. The intention of this Government is to announce a date reasonably soon, which incidentally would be doing considerably better than the Tory Leader of Ontario who took many, many months, I recollect, to declare a seat open so that the Leader of the New Democratic Party could contest an election. So maybe the Tories had better get their act together.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I please have a direct answer to a very simple, direct question? Will the Prime Minister announce in the House prior to next Thursday, June 30, when we rise for the summer recess, the date of the Central Nova by-election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I answered that in the first question. I said that I intended taking it to our Cabinet this week or next week and then we will decide what the date is. 1 do not think the Hon. Leader of the Opposition would want to have the House called back next week to hear a date, if that is indeed when we decide. I am telling the House that we will decide soon.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY MR. MOUSTAPHA NIASSE, MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND OF HIS EXCELLENCY CHE1KH HAMIDOU KANE, MINISTER OF PLANNING AND CO-OPERATION OF SENEGAL
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of His Excellency Mr. Moustapha Niasse, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Senegal, and His Excellency Mr. Cheikh Hamidou Kane, Minister of Planning and Co-operation of Senegal.


CHALLENGE TO PRIME MINISTER ON ISSUE OF BY-ELECTION DATE
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister. Is it not simply a fact that the Prime Minister now knows that when Mr. Mulroney comes into this House he will make mincemeat of the Prime Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I suggest to him that he have some plain, ordinary, old fashioned guts and meet Mr. Mulroney on the floor of the House as he should do, and I hope will do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the prediction about what will happen in terms of mincemeat is being laughed at because everyone remembers that when the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead was chosen Leader of that Party, the Hon. Member for Northumberland said that he would be Prime Minister for 50 years, and I do not think that happened either.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: This time I will be very, very right.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. In view of press reports that the Minister failed to reach an understanding with the Japanese on the importation of motor vehicles, would the Minister inform the House as to the outcome of the negotiations with the Japanese? Were we able to ensure an agreement will be in place once the current interim agreement expires at the end of this month?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, the answer to the distinguished Hon. Member is that we have been able to make an arrangement with the Japanese for a mutually agreed level of restraint on the exportation of Japanese motor vehicles to Canada. That agreement will run for a nine-month period, until next March 31. That is important because it places us on the same time period as the agreement they have with the Americans. Hon. Members will remember that in the past the Japanese, because of the size of the American market, were not prepared to negotiate seriously with us when the American agreement had not expired.
The other thing I would say is that the agreement for the Fiscal year-we wanted to get on the same fiscal year as the Americans-from last March 31 to next March 31 will be for
153,000	vehicles, which is the best agreement we have had yet. In view of the increase in the projected market for this year, it means that the Japanese incursion into the Canadian market for automobiles will, for the first time in some period of time, be less than 20 per cent.

June 27, 1983
26770____________________________
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM


SALARY INCREASE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Staff on the Medical Research Council, a Government agency, have received an incredible 28.4 per cent pay hike in 1983-84, and our senior citizens' pension increases are restricted to the six and five program. To me that is an incredible double standard. What steps will the Minister take to roll back this excessive increase?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I never heard about this, and I would have appreciated it if the Hon. Member had given me advance notice of his question so I could have made enquiries. I know that the 6 and 5 ceiling on wages and benefits applies to the Medical Research Council and has been applied there as in any other part of the Government. However, I will make some enquiries, just in case.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning Government policy. I am sure he is aware that the New Democratic Party has proposed that for any funds put forward by the Government of Canada for capital investment in Canadian Pacific rail line upgrading we take equity shares in return. I communicated that in writing to the Minister of Transport, to which he has yet to respond. Since it is a matter of Government policy, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Canadian Pacific Limited shares have increased in value since the announcement by his Minister of Transport on February 1, by $860 million. Since the passing of second reading of the Bill to change the Crownest Pass rate a few days ago, they have gone up another $259 million. Will the Prime Minister agree that for any funds which the Government of Canada puts up for capital investments that the taxpayers, through the Government of Canada, should be entitled to equity shares in Canadian Pacific Limited in order to get any return on that investment, the same as any other private investor?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to observe the false impression that my hon. friend has of the government's contribution. The Government contribution is not a favour to the railways. It is a favour to the farmers of Canada to reduce the cost of transportation of grain.
With regard do the acreage that CP inherited from settlements at the end of this century, my hon. friend would probably like to know that at the time CP received 36.4 million acres, and 24 million acres were sold to Canadian farmers at a cost of 50 cents to one dollar an acre. Most of the balance was given back to the Government, so much so that out of the settlements of the railways and the Crowsnest, CP today has less than 300,000 acres.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, if ever there was a total evasion of answering a question, that was it. I did not ask about land grants. We can go into that later.
In light of the speculation in the shares of Canadian Pacific Limited, which have increased in value $860 million since the announcement of the Minister of Transport, and since Mr. Desmarais and the Power Corporation of Canada, who are majority shareholders, have benefited by $101 million since February 1, $30 million of that since passage of the Bill at second reading last week, does the Prime Minister think it fair and proper that, for the investment put forward by the Government of Canada on behalf of taxpayers for capital improvements, we should receive equity shares so that we can, on behalf of taxpayers, be eligible for a return on that investment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the
contrary, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport did answer that question in the first part of his answer when he indicated that the Crow legislation which we are debating is an assistance that is being given to farmers so that they continue paying low rates, rates which are non-economical. This is being adjusted, as we know, after many, many decades of losses by the railways.
When the Hon. Member talks about the shares going up, he should look at the stock exchange. He will find that the shares of many, many companies have been going up because there is a recovery, particularly because in transportation there are more goods moving, more exports taking place, and more production, which means more work in Canada. I do not see how the Hon. Member can interpret these facts as something that should worry his Party or ours.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Public Works and for the National Capital Commission. The NCC has just published a magnificent brochure for tourists visiting Canada's capital which extends a welcome to the National Capital
June 27, 1983

Region of Ottawa-Hull. Since this is a matter of national interest, Madam Speaker, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he also intends to recommend to all his Cabinet colleagues that Section 16 of the Constitution should be amended to make the Ottawa-Hull area the national capital of Canada instead of just Ottawa, which, in fact, is being used less and less in designating the capital of Canada?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his appreciative comments on the folders we have been distributing. In fact, I recommend these folders to all Hon. Members who receive visitors from outside the Ottawa-Hull area. We are trying to improve services for visitors from outside the National Capital Region. As for the Hon. Member's proposal that we should amend the Constitution, I think that, because of the time involved, we should be a little more realistic and develop the National Capital Region on both sides of the river so that Canadians visiting the Ottawa-Hull area will see for themselves that the bilingual and bicultural character of this country is alive and well.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. During this fiscal year when the Minister has been transferring considerable authority from his Department to Indian bands, it is astonishing to note at the same time that instead of the administrative program within his Department decreasing, it is in fact increasing over the six and five level, all the way to 8.7 per cent. How can the Minister justify those increases?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member is referring to wages and salaries or to other expenses. If he is referring to the over-all expense of the Department, he should well know that a lot of that is governed by the actions of the provinces, and certainly in we have been endeavouring, at the urging of the Hon. Member, to increase substantially the moneys going to core funding and salaries for chiefs and band councils, which have not been raised for years and years. To correct this injustice we substantially, with the approval of my colleagues and the Prime Minister, for the first time rectified this situation and, I might say, to the gratification and satisfaction of almost every chief and band council in the country that has to administer the programs.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is on the subject of the Northern Pipeline Agency which this year, according to the estimates filed in this House, will spend over $5 million to regulate the non-existent Alaska gas pipeline. Looking through the figures I find that the average salary paid within that organization this year will be $43,653, an increase of over 13 per cent on the previous year. How does the Minister square this 13 per cent increase for a select few senior Government employees with the so-called six and five program that he and his Government have inflicted on so many ordinary Canadians?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have replied to some questions on this subject already. With regard to the matter of salaries, it is the first time the questions has been put in this form. I am sure that when the commission appears before the committee it will be able to answer all the questions. The Minister responsible is the Leader of the Senate, Mr. Olson. When he was in front of the committee with Mr. Sharp, they replied to all the questions. By the way, all the money paid out by this Agency is collected back from the industry. It is not costing the taxpayers a cent.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.

With regard to the statement by my colleague from London West and today's joint announcement by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the President of the Treasury Board, and the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, on an affirmative action program, and in view of the priority commitment considerations regarding the status of women in all legislative matters, has the Minister responsible for the Status of Women undertaken any recent measures to ensure that this Government's commitment to furthering gender equality in this House is not merely met, but indeed, broadened and advanced?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau, I repeat that this is a good day for the women of Canada. The President of the Treasury Board has announced affirmative action programs in all of the Public Service. My

June 27, 1983
Oral Questions
colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, has announced a commission of inquiry.
The Hon. Member has asked what moves we should take to make this House more responsive to the needs of women in Canada. My response is that it is time we did take affirmative action in this House. I met with several of my colleagues in the Opposition and I indicated to them that I have had some conversations with Members of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. However, my position has been consistent and clear during that time. Becasue 90 per cent of all legislation has a direct impact upon women, the committee route is not one that I favour. I would prefer to follow a procedure similar to that which is followed with Cabinet documents.


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Judith A. Erola: And I have written-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


ROLE OF JUDGE AS HEAD OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to either of the two Ministers who made the announcement with regard to the appointment of Madam Justice Abella. I welcome that appointment because I am delighted to hear that somebody is finally getting on with the job of doing something about equality for women in this country.
I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration if Madam Justice Abella will be able to look into the program of affirmative action that was announced three years ago when the federal Government supposedly set up affirmative action programs in Government Departments which so far apply to only three Departments out of the total number of Government Departments and agencies. That is a disgrace. Will the appointment of Madam Justice Abella allow her to look into what the Government is not doing?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, the born again feminist from Kingston and the Islands is obviously once again out of touch.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: Had she been present at the press conference this morning, she would have learned that that affirmative action program has been completely extended to the Public Service and is mandatory, and that the job of Madam Justice Abella is to look into the Crown corporations. I do regret, Madam Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands has not taken the time to examine what was announced this morning.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Earlier this month a distinguished British Columbia County Court Judge, Stuart Leggatt, ruled that writs of assistance violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Despite this ruling, senior officers of the RCMP in British Columbia have said that the police will continue to ignore the court decision by continuing to use these writs which give sweeping and uncontrolled powers of search and seizure. In fact, Inspector Wallace of the Vancouver RCMP has said that he has no instructions from Ottawa to stop using the writs. Will the Solicitor General immediately order members of the RCMP in British Columbia to stop flagrantly violating the law and to cease using writs of assistance as long as the decision by Judge Leggatt holding them unconstitutional stands?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the kinds of unreasonable attacks that the Hon. Member constantly makes against the RCMP indicate, I think, why he was removed by NDP caucus consent from the role of justice critic.
I have not read the articles to which the Hon. Member makes reference, but I can tell him quite categorically what the policy is. In any Province where court decisions have overruled to use of the writ of assistance, the RCMP are not using the writ of assistance, but those cases are under appeal. In Provinces in wich decisions have upheld the writ of assistance or in which no decisions have been reached, the RCMP are continuing to use the writ of assistance.
I have indicated that the matter should be settled by the Supreme Court of Canada. We have appealed the case in which the writ of assistance has been overruled. I have indicated that I am prepared to see the writ of assistance abandoned and have suggested some alternatives which would provide, with judicial preclearance, a system for permitting the police to enter with judicial assistance in cases where it is required in drug law enforcement which would be in full compliance with the spirit of the Charter.
But as of today, I cannot order the RCMP to stop using the writ of assistance in Provinces where it has been upheld in court, because of its importance in effective drug prosecution. Many dozens of cases against alleged drug traffickers and dealers turn on evidence obtained by writs of assistance, and I am not prepared to see all of that evidence go down the drain and all of those alleged drug traffickers, dealers, and importers escape justice.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I will not comment on the description given of the Solicitor General saying he was unforgivably naive, but it is the hope of the entire Parliament that he be removed from his portfolio as soon as possible.
June 27, 1983


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am glad the Hon. Member said that he would not comment on the answer because that is not allowed at all.


PROCLAMATION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS LEGISLATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. As well, the provincial Government in the Province of British Columbia has stated that it will refuse to implement the new young offenders legislation which is scheduled to be proclaimed on October 1, citing excessive cost for extending basic rights under the Act, including the right to counsel. Despite these threats by the Government of British Columbia and the Governments of other Provinces to subvert this new legislation, will the Solicitor General assure the House and the people of Canada that he intends to proceed with the proclamation of the Bill as scheduled on October 1 of this year?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, Parliament has passed that Bill and I think there is a responsibility to proclaim it as soon as possible. The Hon. Member must bear in mind that that new regime will not work without the co-operation and support of the Provinces. In fact there are a number of additional programs that have to be introduced by the Provinces that are within their responsibility, before this legislation can be proclaimed. I do not think the Provinces should have the final say; I think Parliament should. But on the other hand, if the Provinces are proceeding in the spirit of the intention to implement the legislation, as I believe most are, then I think it is my responsibility and the responsibility of the Government to be very sympathetic to the problems that are experienced in implementing that legislation.
Dealing with the cost of implementing the legislation, there is no doubt that, under the Constitution, in the same way that it is a federal responsibility to finance federal correctional institutions, it is a provincial responsibility to finance these provincial institutions. Tremendous financial assistance has been provided in the young offender area over the years. 1 have indicated that we intend to maintain that assistance and increase it, but I cannot predict when satisfactory agreements will be reached with all of the Provinces. However, I can say that as long as the Provinces are moving forward in good faith to implement this major reform of the Government and of the Parliament, I cannot see myself forcing their hands on proclamation.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Our veterans, the men and women who laid their lives on the line for our country, have had their pension increases restricted to the so-called six and five program, while the bureaucrats in the Veterans Affairs
Oral Questions
Program, who have fought nothing but their desks, have received salary increases of 15.4 per cent. Madam Speaker, how does the Prime Minister justify this action? Do our veterans in the country count for 10 per cent less than do departmental bureaucrats?


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is of course known to all Members of the House that the Government has been constantly looking after the affairs of the veterans with great concern and devotion. I would like to point out that the six and five program has not affected the allowances and the pensions of the veterans, and I think therefore that this should be kept in mind in our discussions.


EDUCATION
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, my question concerns the application of the Government's six and five program to university tuition fees and is directed to the Prime Minister. 1 wanted to ask him this question at the six and five birthday party, but I see that it has been cancelled.
In July of 1982 the Secretary of State said that tuition fee increases would be held to a 6 per cent level. Instead, Madam Speaker, the increases rose as high as 30 per cent for the last academic year. We now face a new academic year. 1 would ask the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, bearing in mind that we have put this cap on Government expenditures and that the Government contributes 85 per cent of the cost of post-secondary education, whether the Government can use the good offices of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to ask university administrators to limit increases in university tuition fees to 5 per cent for the next academic year, in light of the high rate of student unemployment and the fact that limited funds are available to these students.


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: I should like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member the letter I sent to all provincial Ministers of Education on January 28 this year, urging them to pass on the additional amount of money that the Canadian Government would be ready to add to the Canada Student Loans program. Last Friday this House unanimously adopted the Bill to increase the annual payment for the next two years to more than $60 million. I have received very positive answers from at least four Provinces in this regard. We are continuously making representations to the Provinces to make sure that the additional amount of money will be passed on to students and will be an increment to student revenues to make sure that they can cope with the difficult economic situation.

June 27, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant DISASTERS


&quot;OCEAN RANGER&quot;-DEATH OF THIRD DIVER
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I should like to put my question to the Minister of Transport. He will know that a third diver involved in the salvage operations of the Ocean Ranger, carrying out an order of the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration which comes directly under his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has been tragically lost within a week. Does the Minister intend to issue a cease and desist order, and will he issue an order that the Ocean Ranger be marked merely by a marker buoy so as not to pose a threat to navigation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I did not become involved in this because it is the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as the Hon. Member said. He was here at the beginning of the Question Period and I will make sure he contacts my hon. friend before the end of the afternoon.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, June 23, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The press in this House is constantly questioning the abilities and competence of the Members of the House of Commons. Last Thursday evening, however, on the occasion of the annual baseball game between the House of Commons and the Press Gallery, we once again demonstrated our superior talents when six Members of the House, with the able assistance of some members of the page corps, soundly thrashed the press side 10-6, ending once and we hope for all time a three-year losing streak.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I have another petition from 24 Ontario residents who state in the petition that toxic chemicals are posing an increasing threat to the potable waters of this Province and that there is presently no legislation which will guarantee the safety and health of those waters. The petition states that Canada's neighbour, the United States of America, has legislation entitled the Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact a safe drinking water Act which will protect and enhance drinking water quality in all areas of Canada.



PARTICIPATION OF VISIBLE MINORITIES IN CANADIAN SOCIETY


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions between the various Parties and I believe it is agreed that the following motion might be put without debate:
That Members of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities be Messrs. Daudlin, Deniger, Kelly, Lewycky, McCauley, Crombie and Paproski.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,735, 4,855, 4,859, 4,898, 4,929 and 4,948.


Mr. Shields: 1.	Does the Department of Transport intend to expand the airport at Fort McMurray, Alberta?
2.	Have negotiations taken place, are they now taking place or will they be taking place with the Alberta Department of Transportation concerning the expansion of the airport and, if so, on what date?
3.	What are all the details of the planned expansion, including the (a) cost (b) time frame (c) extent?
4.	On what date will the expansion be (a) started (b) completed?
5.	Will work be done on the parking area for (a) cars (b) planes?
June 27, 1983


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes, by providing a new air terminal building and installing associated facilities.
2.	Negotiations between Transport Canada and the Alberta Department of Transportation were conducted during the summer and autumn of 1982. The strategy discussed involved provincial financing of construction costs on a partial cost-recovery basis whereby Transport Canada would pay its share of the investment back to the province over a set period. Discussions have been suspended, however, since the Province is no longer interested in the venture.
3.	A new air terminal building and firehall will be built and extensive runway improvements will be carried out at a cost of more than $27 million under the federal government's Special Recovery Capital Projects Program. The terminal building and related work will cost about $24 million and will be constructed in 1985. The cost of the firehall will be approximately $1.24 million and will be completed in 1984. The runway, taxiway, and apron work will total about $1.76 million and will be completed next year.
4.	The Fort McMurray Airport improvements are included in the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program and will contribute towards economic recovery and employment over the next few years. It is currently anticipated that the firehall, runway, taxiway and apron work will be undertaken in the near future with completion in 1984. The terminal building will be constructed in 1985.
5.	Among the ancillary facilities provided with the air terminal building will be (a) a new parking lot for cars, (b) a parking apron for aircraft.


Mr. Howie: Since July 1, 1980, what amount was paid to farmers in New Brunswick to assist with dairy production?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: A total of $9,922,411 in subsidies was paid by the Canadian Dairy Commission to dairy farmers in New Brunswick.


Mr. Howie: 1.	As of April I, 1983, how many persons were employed by the Marine Biological Research Station at St. Andrews, New Brunswick?
2.	What was the operational budget of the station for the fiscal year (a)
1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.	There are 98 continuing full time (CFT) employees, and two term employees for a total of 100.
2.	Fiscal Year
1980-	1981
1981-	1982
1982-	1983
Order Paper Questions
Operations & Salaries	Maintenance
$2.7 Million 3.2 Million 3.1 Million
3.3 Million 3.2 Million 2.8 Million


[Stage Direction]
Total
6.0 Million 6,4 Million 5.9 Million
Mr. Heap: During (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983, were export permits issued to Geometrix Ltd. and Sisman's Shoes for export to the United States or El Salvador and, if so, for what type of product and for which final destination?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: The records of the Export Control Division, Department of External Affairs, show that no export permits were issued in 1981, 1982 and 1983 to Geometrix Ltd. and Sisman's Shoes for the export of controlled gods to El Salvador or to the United States. It should, however, be noted that unless nuclear goods are involved, under the Export and Import Permits Act (ElPA) and its regulations, export permits are not required for exports of otherwise controlled goods when the final destination is the U.S.A.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	In (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982, what was the frequency and amount of lateness of VIA Rail trains which operated on CN and CP rail lines between the Sudbury basin and Winnipeg?
2.	Under what arrangements is Canadian Pacific Limited meeting its obligations under Section 262 of the Railway Act to provide suitable and adequate accommodation for express traffic offered for shipment at points between Sudbury and White River?
3.	Have certain railway stations been replaced by unheated passenger shelters at locations on CN and CP rail lines between the Sudbury basin and Winnipeg since 1977 and, if so (a) at how many locations (b) what were the names of such locations?
4.	Did the Canadian Transport Commission monitor or investigate the railway companies to determine whether they are fulfilling their obligations under Section 262 at points between the Sudbury basin and Winnipeg?


Jesse Philip Flis: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
1.	See table below.
2.	The obligation under Section 262 of the Railway Act for the accommodation of express traffic between Sudbury and White River is being met in accordance with the requirements of Order in Council P.C. 1981-2171 dated August 6, 1981. During the off-peak period of the year, local passenger, mail and express services are provided on the transcontinental passenger train service and during the peak period the same service is provided by tri-weekly local passenger trains 185 and 186.
3.	On CN line between Sudbury and Winnipeg authority has been granted to replace the stations at Caramet, Hillsport and Gomaga with an unheated shelter. Since 1977, no station on CP line between Sudbury and Winnipeg has been replaced by an unheated shelter.
4.	Monitoring of all aspects of rail service is performed as an adjunct to other duties. Any deficiencies noted or brought to

June 27, 1983
Order Paper Questions
the Commission's attention are acted upon to ensure suitable and adequate accommodation for traffic.
The table below indicates the frequency and lateness of VIA Rail passenger-trains operated on CP and CN rail lines between the Sudbury basin and Winnipeg for the years 1980-
1981 and 1982.	1980	1981	1982Frequency %	Frequency %	Frequency %Train No. 1 (CP) On-time	186-51%	Sudbury - Winnipeg 316-87%	305 - 84%6" to 15"	31 - 9%	9- 2%	18- 5%16" to 30"	31 - 9%	10- 3%	14- 4%31"to 1 hour	117-31%	10- 3%	6- 1%Over 1 hour	Nil	20- 5%	22- 6%Train No. 2 (CP) On-time	143 - 39%	Winnipeg - Sudbury 288 - 79%	299 - 82%6" to is-	17- 5%	18- 5%	9- 2%le" to 30"	28- 7%	20- 6%	9- 2%31"to 1 hour	177- 49%	21 - 5%	14- 5%Over 1 hour	Nil	18- 5%	34- 9%Train No. 185 (CP) On-time	150 - 88%	Sudbury - White River 70 - 43%	29 - 73%6" to 15"	Nil	7- 4%	Nil16" to 30"	2- 1%	16- 10%	2- 5%31" and over	18-11%	71 -43%	9-22%Train No. 186 (CP) On-time	153- 90%	White River - Sudbury 99-61%	31 - 78%6" to 15"	Nil	6-4%	7- 17%16" to 30"	2- 1%	17- 10%	2-5%31" and over	16- 9%	40 - 25%	NilTrain No. 3 (CP)	June 8 - Sept. 28	Sudbury - Winnipeg	On-time	51 -45%	Nil	Nil6" to 15"	9- 8%	Nil	Nil16" to 30"	14- 12%	Nil	Nil31" and over	39 - 35%	Nil	NilTrain No. 4 (CP)	June 8 - Sept. 28 19 - 17%	Winnipeg - Sudbury	On-time	Nil	Nil6" to 15"	13-11%	Nil	Nil16" to 30"	11-10%	Nil	Nil31" and over	71 -62%	Nil	NilTrain No. 3 (CN On-time	Nil	Capreol - Winnipeg June 1 - Oct. 24 78 - 53%	Nil6" to 15"	Nil	15- 10%	Nil16" to 30"	Nil	15- 10%	Nil31" and over	Nil	38 - 27%	NilTrain No. 4 (CN) On-time	Nil	Winnipeg - Capreol June 1 - Oct. 24 54 - 38%	Nil6" to 15"	Nil	11 - 8%	Nil16" to 30"	Nil	15- 10%	Nil31" and over	Nil	65 - 44%	NilTrain No. 7 (CN) On-time	175 - 68%	Capreol - Winnipeg 236 - 73%	122- 78%6" to 15"	16- 6%	22- 7%	8- 5%16" to 30"	15- 6%	17- 5%	2- 1%31" to 1 hour	16- 6%	9- 3%	7- 5%Over 1 hour	37- 14%	36- 12%	18- 11%Train No. 8 (CN) On-time	121 -47%	Winnipeg - Capreol 200 - 65%	94 - 60%6" to 15"	17- 7%	20- 6%	13- 8%16" to 30"	36- 14%	24- 8%	10- 6%31"to 1 hour	37- 14%	15- 5%	12- 8%Over 1 hour	49- 18%	49- 16%	27- 18%EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Nowlan: 1. Did the Export Development Corporation receive an application for a loan or loans to Telecommunications d'Haiti S.A., also known as Teleco, or Telephone Continental Limitee of Henriville, Quebec, since 1967 and, if so (a) on
what date (b) for a loan or loans of what amount (c) to be used for what purpose?
2.	Was any such loan application turned down in 1970 or thereabouts and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Apart from the companies mentioned in part I, what other persons and companies were mentioned in the applications or known by the EDC to be associated with the applicants and what were their addresses?
4.	Who owned Teleco and Telephone Continental Limitee at the time the application was made?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Export Development Corporation states that:
As a matter of general policy EDC does not disclose its participation in a direct lending transaction in respect of an export transaction until the financing agreement therefor is signed. Since information on bids, participation or negotiations is given at the application stage by exporters to EDC in confidence, EDC, to respect that confidence, refrains, until the sale arrangements are final, from discussing a deal or even from indicating that it has been approached in a transaction. EDC has not made a loan or loans to Telecommunications d'Haiti S.A. or another foreign customer in Haiti since 1967.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,801 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4,801 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Were outside consultants employed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 and, if so, how many and what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case (a) what was his/her name (b) what was the amount (c) what services were provided?
Return tabled.


Mr. Taylor:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when I will get an answer to question No. 2,329 which was filed in April, 1981. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary is now up to questions numbered in the 4,000s. When will we receive an answer to
June 27, 1983

No. 2,329? Is the Government trying to hide something or why can I not get an answer to this simple question?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, a Government that has answered over 4,160 questions in one session is not trying to hide anything, and a Government that has passed the Access to Information Act is not trying to hide anything. I want to assure the Hon. Member that I will be delighted to convey his concern to the Minister. I will see what I can do to expedite an answer.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has been delighted seven times now. ] wish he would get the answer and let me be delighted.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, each time it is an even greater joy and 1 look forward to the next occasion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. As the month of June is running out, I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is very anxious to give us the benefit of answers to my questions. These concern the many trips that the emperor, the Prime Minister, has taken to the various parts of the world. I should like to know what these cost and how much of that cost the Canadian taxpayers will have to share. Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that we will have that answer before June 30?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I had two questions along the same lines from Conservative Members last Thursday, the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine. I advised them that as soon as I get an answer from the Minister it is tabled in the House. The Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville then decided she would put the question directly to the Minister. There is nothing to prevent the Hon. Member for York-Peel from doing the same thing. If he wishes to put question directly to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he may do so.
I will convey his concern again and as soon as I get an answer I will table it.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed
to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: that Bill C-165, an Act to provide for financial assistance for industrial development in all regions of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Industrial and Regional Development Act
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to discuss Bill C-165, which provides a program for financial assistance to business and industry in all parts of Canada.
I apologize to my colleagues and to the Hansard reporters for my voice, Madam Speaker; I hope it does not fade too much before the end of my 20 minutes.
Let me begin by saying that the purpose of the Bill is very simple: it is to create and maintain long-term employment for Canadians from coast to coast. The program which will be authorized under the Bill is the Industrial and Regional Development Program which is being presented after much study by the private sector, by officials, my Cabinet colleagues and by Members of Parliament on both sides of the House.
Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced in early 1982 the reorganization of economic departments of Government which will result in the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, we have examined the need to ensure regional industrial development and the existing array of industrial support programs that have been available in DREE and ITC. The reasons were the same as those which spurred the decision to reorganize. There is a need, on the one hand, to rededicate ourselves to combating regional disparity in Canada and, on the other hand, we must ensure that industrial restructuring programs are actually geared to meet the circumstances which face Canadian industries in today's very competitive world market.
Regional disparity still exists in Canada despite the successful efforts of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which was launched some 14 years ago. These disparities not only place hardships on individual Canadians, but they also place a strain on the national fabric and detract from our ability to move forward as a unified nation in the pursuit of our common goals.
Combating regional disparity is difficult even in good economic times. With the onset of the recent world-wide recession, times have not been good. If it is difficult to offset regional disparities in times when our traditional industries in the industrial heartland are enjoying a period of strength, it is much more difficult in the period when, because of world-wide downturn, those traditional industries are suffering from soft markets, stiff international competition, rapid technological change and rising protectionism from the countries which make up our market. These circumstances demand a concerted action on the part of all Canadians, Governments at all levels and the private sector, both management and labour. With the reorganization of federal economic departments and the introduction of programs such as that contained in this Bill, the Government is trying to play its part in this concerted action.
The program outlined in this Bill has a number of features which are clearly recommended to the business community, to the Canadian public and to Hon. Members of Parliament. First and foremost, let us recognize that this program provides

June 27, 1983
Industrial and Regional Development Act
for the first time a regionally sensitized, multifaceted program of industrial financial assistance in all parts of Canada. I believe that is a point which has not been adequately emphasized in discussion of the program to date. This is not a program available only in certain designated regions; whatever riding any Hon. Member of this House represents, his or her constituents will be eligible for assistance under this program.
Another feature of this program is its flexibility. It is specifically designed to provide the type of assistance which is appropriate to a given industry, area or community at a given time. Hon. Members of this House well know that these needs vary greatly by region, by sector and over time in Canada. We have areas where the need is for greater investment and infrastructure in order to permit industries to establish and grow. We have areas where the need is for industrial diversification, the establishment of new plants or the launching of new product lines. We have areas and industries where the need is for innovation, to improve competitiveness.
These are more than needs. They are also tremendous opportunities, Mr. Speaker. They are opportunities to expand into the revolutionary growth industries of the future and opportunities to apply the benefits of technology and other innovations to virtually all of our existing industries in all parts of Canada, thus to ensure long-term viability and growth. We have great opportunities, through aggressive marketing techniques, to expand the international and domestic market for Canadian goods and services. This program addresses these needs and opportunities.
The program, Mr. Speaker, has yet another significant feature. In addition to the provisions I have listed, it adds a powerful new weapon to the federal Government arsenal in the continuing fight against regional disparity. The program recognizes not only the varied needs and opportunities of Canada's many regions, but also the levels of financial assistance required for effective industrial development across those regions. This program renews and renders more effective the commitment to regional economic development which underlay the establishment of DREE in 1969. It provides for the first time the levels of financial assistance specifically tailored to the level of disparity of the area concerned. Here we are not talking about broad geographic areas; we are talking about areas as small and specific as can be defined, using consistent, meaningful data which is available on a national basis. The method of using the data will be equitable, objective and subject to automatic regular review. It will provide the country's first consistent measure of regional disparity in Canada.
The mechanism I am referring to is the development index which uses data on employment, personal income and provincial fiscal capacity in order to provide a clear measure of the relative need for assistance. It will be applied to areas as small and specific as a single census district. Using the development index, areas of Canada are arranged at four levels or tiers of regional need. The first tier in which the basic level of support under the program will be provided contains the most developed 50 per cent of the population of Canada where there is a substantial need for industrial restructuring. In this tier, for example, financial assistance of up to 50 per cent of costs for
innovation of marketing activities will be provided and up to 25 per cent of modernization and expansion costs. There are three other tiers with increasing levels of support. For instance, in Tier IV areas, which contain the 5 per cent of the population living in areas of greatest need, the maximum level of support of the program is provided. Here, for example, up to 60 per cent of cost for plant establishment may be provided.
Since I first proposed this program during the budget debate, there have been several refinements to it. One of these refinements refers to the tier system. In any Tier I area where the unemployment ratio exceeds the national average by 1 per cent for any consecutive six-month period, that area will be provided with the next higher, or Tier II, level of assistance for establishment for one year. This is to provide for those instances where, for example, a cyclical downturn affects an area in the short term in a way which would not show up immediately by applying the development index, but where a short-term, although very real economic hardship nonetheless dictates a need for increased assistance. That is another example of the flexibility which is designed into this program.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the program provided for in this Bill, the Industrial and Regional Development Program, has been very carefully designed, after much consultation with the private sector and much discussion with my colleagues, to meet the general and specific goals of regional and industrial development in all parts of Canada. It provides for support over the whole range of industrial development needs, industrial infrastructure, industrial innovation, plant establishment, modernization, expansion, marketing and industrial restructuring or renewal. It provides support for these activities when and where they are needed in Canada. It provides for effective regional development by instituting a strong incentive to Canadian firms to invest in those areas of Canada which are in the greatest need of that investment.
I wish to remind Hon. Members that we have devised an organizational structure in the new department which will put the regional sensitivity and flexibility of this program into practice at the local level. We have been moving to put into place an organization based on decentralized expertise, decision making and local program delivery. We have combined the industrial sector expertise from ITC with the regional capacity of DREE. We have established regional offices in all Provinces, several new sub-offices, and more will open in the future.
We are working to establish a "one-stop shopping" approach to the Government assistance for business in our local offices. The local decision and delivery capacity of these offices should speed up the processing of applications significantly. The chief role of these offices is to make the Government services more widely available to businesses, particularly small and medium-size entrepreneurs. No longer will the business community have to travel to Ottawa to have access to federal information and assistance. The role of the people staffing these offices will be to get to know the business community and act as its advocate with the federal Government. They will take an
June 27, 1983

active role in informing firms of available Government support, all of which, incidentally, will be available locally for the first time.
1 have said, Mr. Speaker, that the new Industrial and Regional Development Program was devised with the benefit of consultation with the private sector. Let me assure the House that its implementation will be carried out in the same way. When referring to the private sector, I would like to reiterate that I mean business management and labour. I firmly believe, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stated in his budget, that in order to achieve our goals we must have the active participation of all the players in the game. For these reasons we will administer the new program, and indeed all programs of the Department, with the benefit of advice from the Industrial and Regional Development Board which will be co-chaired by representatives of management and labour, with membership from each group. The board will also have appropriate regional representation in its membership. By advising the Government, through our Department, on broad policy issues, the board will have an effective instrument to ensure the Government's industrial policy and programs are based on a broad consensus.
Another means to assist this effort, as Hon. Members will be aware, has been a move through our Department to establish sector-specific task forces or advisory committees, once again co-chaired by both management and labour. The efforts of these task forces will be of great benefit in terms of establishing our goals and strategies as far as the key industrial sectors are concerned.
Before concluding, I want to make clear the status of the general development agreements which have been administered by DREE. When the new structure for economic development departments was announced, there was some speculation as to the future of the general development agreements, or the GDAs, as Hon. Members call them, that were negotiated between DREE and the Provinces. I want to make it clear that those agreements are still in place and that subsidiary agreements will continue to be struck with the Provinces. GDAs will continue until their expiry in 1984 and negotiations for new agreements to replace them will take place in due course.
The administration of GDA activities has changed, however. Instead of a single Department, DREE, being responsible for administrative activities under the GDAs, this activity is now implemented by the various appropriate federal departments, including our Department, under the over-all co-ordination of the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development.
1 firmly believe that what I have described today amounts to a major step forward in the rationalization, simplification and perfection of the federal Government's approach to both regional and industrial development objectives. I believe Hon. Members on both sides of the House have good reasons for
Industrial and Regional Development Act
supporting this exciting new Bill. At a time when some 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed, a concerted effort is needed for strengthening our industries. That need will increase as we strive for economic recovery in a world of rapid technological change and extreme competition. I believe it is timely, as the economic recovery takes hold, that we are proposing an improved method to ensure that our industrial strength increases in all parts of Canada.
Canadians who are watching the deliberations of the House I am sure will support me when I ask that we proceed with the Bill and get on with the job which must remain our first priority, that of creating meaningful and rewarding employment in all regions of Canada.
I would ask unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Regional Development, rather than what was originally proposed by my colleague the House Leader, that it be sent to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent by the House that the Minister be allowed to amend his motion to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Regional Development?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a point of order. I am not sure whether questions are allowed in this period, and I just wonder if the Minister would permit a question.


Edward C. Lumley: Yes.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister spoke of decentralization. It has been written about the Bill that the Government's nose was put out of joint when its polls revealed that most Canadians were not grateful to the federal Government which was providing industrial help to the regions, so that from now on the Government is determined to get a greater share of the limelight.
Would the Minister in fact agree with the words of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), who said: "We want to move in on the West like the little bird that sits behind the elephant's ear"? Would the Minister agree that this, in fact, is not a decentralization measure at all, but rather a centralizing measure in the sense that the Government will have a larger role in directing the pattern of industrial growth in Canada, and hence will have more power? This really is not a decentralizing Bill at all. It is a centralizing Bill to give the federal Government more power and more credit for what the Government has been doing in giving money to different parts of the country.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that I am pleased to answer the Hon. Member's question. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I cut down my speech was to have more time for questions. With respect to the matter of the poll, I have no knowledge of that poll nor have I ever seen anything

June 27, 1983
Industrial and Regional Development Act
like it. Further, I am not aware of what Mr. Tom Axworthy said in this regard.
Let me say that we on this side feel very strongly, and I guess I feel very strongly on a personal basis, both as the former Mayor of a city which had the highest unemployment rate in Canada and as a former small and medium-sized entrepreneur, that it is very frustrating for small and mediumsized businessmen to obtain assistance out of Ottawa, because no matter what region of the country one comes from, one does not have the time or the money to come to Ottawa on a regular basis to find out what kind of assistance is available.
If one really wants to solve the problems of regional disparity in the country, one must take all of the economic tools of the Government to each region of the country. Until the Bill was introduced, neither the programs of the old Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce nor of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion were available to every part of the country. In some parts of the country only the DREE program was available and in other parts of the country only the IT&C programs were available. Therefore, we have taken the best of the programs of those two former departments and combined them into the one program called the Industrial and Regional Development Program which is being introduced today.
The other aspect is that we could not deliver these programs on a regional basis to reach out to the small and medium-sized entrepreneur because we had a totally unmanageable number of programs in the Department. It was unmanageable even here in Ottawa, where there were 2,000 to 3,000 people to administer them. Therefore, it was obviously impossible to have them delivered by the regional offices.
Therefore, we undertook what I called the "crunching" exercise to reduce over 100 programs into seven major programs. This program is one of those seven major programs and it will constitute approximately one-half of the total budget of the Department. Therefore, for the first time we will indeed have not only decentralized delivery, but also decentralized decision-making in terms of the vast majority of the applications that will be coming forward from the private sector in each region of the country.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would expand on the population features in Tiers I, II, and III. It appears to me that this limitation of population in each may disqualify areas that are otherwise very, very needy. What is the actual purpose of the population requirement in Tiers I, II and III?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the only areas that are now designated under the DREE program are by provincial boundaries or, in the case of B.C. his Province and my Province, the northern parts of our Provinces.
In essence, with respect to areas comprising almost 50 per cent of the population of the country, industries located in those areas are not now eligible for financial assistance under the old RDIA program. In essence, we will not take the 50 per cent which is the most developed part of Canada and ensure
that it will have financial assistance for any company that wants to undertake modernization, expansion, innovation, design research and development, marketing or industrial renewal. Then we will take the 50 per cent of the country which is least developed and break it into three specific tiers, Tier IV being the bottom 5 per cent in terms of economic development in Canada. In turn, it will have the most enriched part of the program. We will then take the product cycle and the life cycle of a company and enrich the financial assistance, depending on in which of those four tiers a company is located. There is only one difference between the tiers outside of the degree of enrichment. For example, maximum assistance for modernization or expansion starts at 25 per cent of eligible capital costs for Tier I, 35 per cent for Tier II, 50 per cent for Tier III and 50 per cent for Tier IV.
The one element that is not available to the most developed part of the country is the new establishment. That has traditionally belonged to what we call the DREE-designated areas. In other words, if we allowed new companies in the most developed part of Canada to receive financial assistance, there would obviously be no reason, no justification whatsoever, for these companies to locate in the so-called disadvantaged areas of the country. That is the only element not included in each tier. It is important for Hon. Member's to realize that for the first time it is not a question as to whether one is designated or is not designated, but rather a question as to the degree of enrichment for which a Member's riding is designated. Previously, if a riding was not designated, that means a Member's companies could not receive any financial assistance. From now on, they will receive financial assistance, but the enrichment will depend on the degree of economic disparity.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I would like to ask a supplementary question. I understand what the Minister is saying, but say that I have an area that has 10 per cent of the population of the Province and it is a very needy area. Will it be disqualified under Tier I simply because of its population?


Edward C. Lumley: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not understand the whole question of the Hon. Member. We have taken the 260 census divisions from Statistics Canada, and we will use that as a basis for determining the regions for assistance. Then we have taken three major criteria: unemployment, disposable income and fiscal capacity of the respective Province. Then we have weighted those three because they are obviously not all of equal importance. As well as weighing those three criteria, we divide the country into the top 50 per cent or bottom 50 per cent of economic activity. Then we break down the tiers, the lowest developed 5 per cent is Tier IV, the next 20 per cent is Tier III, the next 30 per cent is Tier II and then the bottom 50 per cent, which is Tier I. It may be that some Hon. Members might have two or three census divisions in their constituencies. They may have a census division that is a Tier II, a census division that is a Tier I and a census division that is a Tier III. That sounds very complicated but it will really be very simple because of the index. If any Hon. Member wants to find out what tier any town or city in
June 27, 1983

his constituency is in, or what census division it is in which, in turn, tells which tier it is in, it just takes a telephone call to the regional director and that can be established for every city and town right across the country.
The other major element that is different from when it was first raised in debate resulted from the difficulty Members from all Parties in the parliamentary committee had with the cyclical problem. In other words, a city the size of 100,000 population could lose two or three industries in a very short period of time. That would have a dramatic impact on the employment situation, yet those statistics would not show up for two or three years in the development index and that community would have been graded among the most developed regions in Canada in the initial evaluation. That is why we injected an unemployment clause which we call Tier I. For any region in Tier I that is for six consecutive months 1 per cent over the unemployment figure will automatically classify for the Tier II degree of enrichment regarding new establishment.
Mir. Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Minister. First, I would like to congratulate him on what I consider a very constructive program, one that has long been needed. I am glad that he finally has all of its parts together and has come out with a concise program. As Members of Parliament, we will immediately want to know, so that we can pass on the information to our ridings, what degree of help could be available to the various parts of the riding and the riding as a whole, or if there will be a variation from one part to another and what those variations will be. As well, to whom in his Department should we direct our inquiries on behalf of our ridings so that we can get a concise answer to send to our riding press so they can, in turn, advise the various parts of the riding what assistance is available to them?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I accept with gratitude the Hon. Member's compliments with respect to the program, particularly since it comes from such a distinguished Member of the House.
With respect to each riding, the lists are already made up of tiers for each part of every Member's riding. These could be distributed this afternoon but they will be distributed tomorrow, assuming we get concurrence in the House to refer this Bill to committee, which I understand is forthcoming. It will be referred to members of the Regional Development Committee tomorrow.
I can tell the Hon. Member right now what tiers his constituency is in. The Hon. Member can call me and I will take care of it myself rather than someone on my staff.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in his comments the Minister made reference to the task force. There has been remarkable success with a majority of these task forces but sometimes the very volume has necessitated a delay in the immediate followup that one might require or feel appropriate.
Industrial and Regional Development Act
Recently, in response to my question, the Minister was kind enough to answer that a Mr. Bolger and Mr. Reimer would head a special task force on the petrochemical industry. First, 1 assume from the chairmanship that it will be made up of management and labour. Will civil servants be sitting on that particular task force or will they be there as observers? Could he tell us when he anticipates this task force will be meeting?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member. I was supposed to call him this morning but I forgot. The task force has been assigned. All those who have been asked to serve have agreed to do so. They will be holding their first meeting here in Ottawa tomorrow morning. Members of my Department, Energy, Mines and Resources, and, I believe, two other departments will be sitting as observers and will be available as a resource when necessary. It is not a Government-led task force but an industry-led task force. As it has been with all other task forces, our people are there to assist the private sector members in any way they deem appropriate.


Miss Campbell:: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister concerns the development index and his reference to the Statistics Canada 260 census districts. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act, Statistics Canada presently uses economic zones. Is that the same idea behind these 260 census districts? If so, there is a big problem in passing this Act. Some constituencies, such as my own, are grouped into two different census districts or economic zones. A situation could occur where a neighbour from one county may work at the same place as a person from my county who is affected by the unemployment rate, needs more weeks because the variable entrance requirements apply to that person while not to the other.
How does the Minister rationalize these problems which may exist within an economic zone or census district under Statistics Canada? For example, if Lunenburg county in Nova Scotia, which is very prosperous, is grouped with Digby, Annapolis, Yarmouth or even Shelburne, a different picture arises.
I have protested the use of economic zones under the Unemployment Insurance Act since I became a Member in 1974. While we have arrived at a type of averaging, even that does not show the difference in the unemployment insurance rate in my constituency versus the upper half of that economic zone, which is a very well developed area with good employment. This legislation as it exists would penalize such a constituency.
Is there any leeway to look at an area outside of this development index that we are hearing about today?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises an important point. It is one of the reasons it has taken so long to bring this Bill forward. We have been trying to develop an equitable, objective index and it has taken a substantial amount of time.
First, it is very easy to use the Statistics Canada figures from the 260 census areas for determining disposable income.

June 27, 1983
Industrial and Regional Development Act
As the Hon. Member indicated, the employment figures are more difficult to ascertain. For unemployment insurance there are 66 economic zones, as the Hon. Member is aware. Not only have we expanded those 66 zones, but we will now be able to break that down even further. We have 189 areas to determine the unemployment criteria. We tried to break it down into the smallest areas possible so that we will have the most sensitive figures with respect to unemployment. Thus for the unemployment figures we have taken 189 economic areas rather than the 66 which I understand UIC uses.
While the Hon. Member was talking I was looking at her constituency, which I know very well, in order to give her an indication of how sensitive this development index is. As the Hon. Member knows, no index is perfect but we happen to believe that this is the best one to be developed to date. After one year's experience with this, we will be able to improve upon it even more.
For example, there are three census areas in the Hon. Member's constituency which are Yarmouth, Annapolis and Digby. The Hon. Member will have a Tier III zone for two of those areas and a Tier IV for the third. Obviously she is at the maximum, with the exception of the new establishment in the Tier III area, for all three census areas in her particular riding. 1 believe the Hon. Member can see that we have addressed the very issue that she has raised. The fact that one part of a Member's riding may be more developed than another does not totally distort the whole riding. This can be seen in the Hon. Member's specific riding in which there are three census areas where she has a Tier III and Tier IV for each one of the three census areas.


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for the Bill he introduced in the House today, since it in many ways embodies recommendations that have been made in recent years. The Minister referred to regional offices, and it must be said that many of these regional offices have done quite extraordinary work during the last few years. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether or not my impression is correct that the regional offices are becoming what, in many parts of the country, is being referred to as a one-stop counter? For instance, will a businessman, instead of having to rush to Montreal, be able to go to his regional office and get all the information he needs on various programs for small-and medium-sized businesses? If that is the case, I think the Minister will be glad to hear that in many parts of Canada and especially in Quebec, there has been considerable demand for this kind of office for some time.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, having been chairman of the Committee on Regional Development, I think we have raised in the Bill many of the criticisms which Hon. Members such as himself have raised over the years.
Yes, we are going to take the one-stop shop concept and make it work rather than just talking about it. For the first time all the programs that used to be available from the ITC and DREE offices will be under a one-stop shop concept. For example, in the Hon. Member's Province, ITC had an office in Quebec City and one in Montreal. DREE had an office in Montreal, Quebec City and several other cities. Programs for research and development, for example, were not under any DREE mandate but were under the ITC mandate. Consequently, they were not available to the small and medium-sized entrepreneur throughout the Province of Quebec or for other reasons across the country. Then we opened up les bureaux de l'OCRI in a couple of areas and did not open them in others.
What we are trying to do now is to ensure that a small and medium-sized entrepreneur will not have to go any further than his own sub-office to find out what is available from the Government of Canada to help him improve the competitiveness of his company. We will even take it one step further, Mr. Speaker. We are going to make better use of the FBDB offices which under the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism's (Mr. Rompkey's) direction have something like 109 branches throughout the country. We will be using those offices to a greater degree. In communities where there is a regional office of FBDB and a regional office of ITC-DREE, long-range plans call for them to be put in the same building. Now, when a small or medium-sized entrepreneur goes to a government building he has to go to one building to see what is available from one department and then go to another building to see what is available from another. But we are going to try and do our very best to make sure that one-stop shopping becomes the normal way of doing things, rather than the exception, which is what most Members of Parliament find today.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: 1 have two short questions for the Minister. Will the passage of this Bill eliminate the discriminatory practice we have had in the past with communities within the same region, where one community is eligible for assistance while an adjacent one may not be? For instance, in the Miramichi area, in the northwest part the parish of Alnwick is eligible for assistance grants and other communities on the northwest side of the river are not. On the southeast, Glenelg, Hardwick and Rogersville are eligible for grants but other communities on that side of the river are not. Will this Bill eliminate that kind of discrimination?
When the Minister talks about putting offices of the Federal Business Development Bank and ITC-DREE in the same building, can he tell us when the offices of these two government agencies will be moved out of the larger cities of the area into the areas that are underdeveloped and where they belong?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the last question of the Hon. Member first. He will recall that when my colleague the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism spoke during the budget debate he indicated the new thrust which the Government has undertaken with the Federal Business
June 27, 1983

Development Bank. The Government has indicated to the FBDB that it wants to concentrate its efforts on the rural regions of Canada rather than the urban centres where the commercial banks can handle most of the financing activities. A whole new thrust of the FBDB will be to concentrate its efforts in the rural areas, as lenders of last resort in those areas where the business community is having difficulty trying to raise funds for normal commercial institutions.
As to the Hon. Member's first question, with the exception of new establishments in Tier I, to me the most important part of this whole new program is the fact there will be no discrimination, whether a riding is designated or not designated. The question, now that everyone is designated, is "To what degree of financial assistance is a company in a Member's constituency entitled?" There will no longer be a dividing line indicating that this constituency will not receive assistance from the Government of Canada and that constituency will. The question will be, depending upon the economic disparity of the two constituencies, what degree of assistance a constituency will receive. There is the exception again, as I said, of Tier I. The reason for the Tier 1 non-eligibility for establishment is to ensure that the developed regions of the country do not compete on an equal basis with the rest of the areas. In other words, if an entrepreneur were to locate a new company and he received the same assistance in the most developed parts of the country as he did in the least developed, I would say there would be no incentive to locate in an area of regional disparity. That category of assistance for that category will not be available under Tier I. Other than that, there will still be assistance for modernization, expansion, research and development, marketing, innovation and design. In fact, all the programs of financial assistance that up until now were not available in all parts of the country will be available to those companies in all regions of the country for the first time.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's answer; I thought it was very forthright. 1 realize the Government has proclaimed a thrust to get FBDB and 1TC-DREE out of the urban centres and into the rural areas of the country where they belong, but I have not yet seen any action.
I have a concern that while these people are in urban centres, as sensitive as they may be, they do not really understand what is going on in the rural parts of Canada. In the decision with regard to the assistance to which industries will be entitled, will local representatives be consulted rather than just bureaucrats in Ottawa who go on a statistical basis which has no relevance whatever to the realistic situation in a particular area of the country?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Hon. Member, we have already opened several regional or sub-offices in the last couple of years. For example, in the plan for New Brunswick, when the final number of offices for that Province is determined, there will be more offices there for our Department than in the Province of Ontario. I think that will give an
Industrial and Regional Development Act
indication to the Hon. Member how serious we are in addressing the regional disparity issue.
With respect to consultation with individual Members of Parliament, I am sure the Hon. Member recognizes that commercial confidentiality of the information provided by the applicants is the key. In other words, if the private sector wishes to have the Member of Parliament involved in the assessment of the application, that is up to the company applying. The Government has no authority to give access to that information to anybody, otherwise you violate the confidentiality of the negotiations with an individual company. The Government does not object to that, but the decision is up to the individual company making the application to the Government of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would like to recognize two Members, the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) followed by the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott).


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister on Bill C-165, along with all his other endeavours and thrusts in trying to streamline the delivery of all of these programs, whether ITC, DREE or the FBDB.
I want to join with my colleague the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) and again underline to the Minister the need for some of those offices and services being located where the action is. I can certainly tell the Minister that we have a need for some of those services right in my own riding of Restigouche.
With regard to the kind of liaison in communication that will take place between those officials with the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) and officials of Industry, Trade and Commerce and DREE, can the Minister tell us what mechanism will be in place? Could the Minister tell us exactly the flow of things from the time we identify projects, whatever they might be, whether infrastructure, transportation support or a new industry, and elaborate a little more about how this will work, specifically in the Province of New Brunswick day to day in terms of dealing with constituents and with requests from Members of Parliament? Can he tell us just exactly how the new programs will be operated once this legislation is adopted?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must recognize that there are two distinct facets to our program delivery. One is under general development subagreements with the Provinces and the other is where we do direct delivery ourselves with financial assistance to individual corporations, whether they be manufacturing, processing, tourism or related service sectors.
The direct delivery of financial assistance to companies is by application. The only time we are involved with other departments is when we feel there is some impact on them and consequently officials of our Department will consult with their officials.
26784

June 27, 1983
Industrial and Regional Development Act
We would get directly involved with my colleague, the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development, primarily in the areas where we would be negotiating general development subagreements with the Provinces. My colleague's responsibility would be for the over-all co-ordination of all the line departments to ensure that each line department has a regional sensitivity. For example, from the perspective of my Department in terms of industrial parks and tourism and with my colleague, the Minister responsible for Small Businesses and Tourism, we will not negotiate with the Provinces until such time as we have co-ordinated our efforts with the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development.
Those are the two aspects of economic development of our Department. Whereas before our Department was responsible for DREE subagreements in all sectors-transportation, urban development and forestry, these will now be handled by the line departments under the co-ordination of my colleague, the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister's time has expired. With the consent of the House 1 would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott). Is there unanimous consent?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps we could seek unanimous consent to continue for several more minutes, maybe ten more. It might preclude many speeches if Members could put questions to the Minister and obtain answers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has shown considerable leeway and has recognized a very substantial number of Hon. Members. At this point the Chair would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on the very fair and efficient manner in which you handle the office of the Chair. Also I would like to commend the Minister on his Bill. I do not say that it has everything I would like to see but, coming from a riding with an unemployment rate 3.5 per cent above the national average and never being able to qualify for DREE, I would say that the old Bill was certainly a discrimination.
There is a lot of good in this Bill. As the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) indicated, I am also quite interested in knowing how soon we will see some benefits from this new Bill. I would like to ask the Minister how much negotiation he has to do with the implementation of any of these designated areas with the individual governments of each Province? How closely does the Minister have to work with them? Can he go out on his own, or does he still have to consult the department of industry or whatever of the different Provinces?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, this is solely a federal initiative. It is a direct delivery program. There are no negotiations needed with anybody except the applicant. Once this Bill is passed by the House and by the other place, we could start delivery immediately. We are hoping, if colleagues on both
sides of the House think the Bill is to the benefit of all Canadians, that we will have the legislation approved this week and we will be ready to go as of July 1 and provide financial assistance for companies right across the country.
I know the Hon. Member has raised this issue on many occasions before the committee. I think he will be happy to know that many of the things which he said about his own constituency in terms of need have been borne out by the development index. For example, he happens to have about four different census areas in his constituency. He will find that in most of his constituency he will have the highest level of enrichment of any constituency in the Province of Ontario. I mean this sincerely when I say it. Often we in the Government are accused of doing something which will only feather our own nests as Government Members of Parliament. For the first time in regional development terms we really have a fair and equitable index, not the arbitrary decision of a Minister depending on which Party is in power to decide which area gets designated. Also in terms of new ridings being designated under this new program, there are more Opposition ridings being added to the designation list than Government ones. If that is not an indication to Hon. Members of how fair and equitable is this program, I do not know what is.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I want to return very briefly to the question of the smooth operation of this new delivery system. I see the Bill talks about the Minister of International Trade, and I wonder whether part of this Bill will fall under his purview. Will he be responsible for those items, or do all these matters come under the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and DREE?
Also returning very briefly to my question respecting smooth operations in individual Provinces, the Minister did not quite elaborate on what is in place from the time a suggested project goes through the policy analysis of the Minister of State and his officials in any given Province-and I am speaking of the Province of New Brunswick-through the linkages and liaisons between the officials of the Minister of State for Economic Development and the Minister's officials who are directly responsible for DREE in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In other words, I am concerned about the bureaucracy, about which there has been much discussion. Regardless of what department it is or whether it is municipal, provincial or federal, I think we are all concerned that from time to time projects are delayed, if not put off or killed off entirely, because of the necessity to go through these various steps.
I am hopeful the Minister will be able to tell us today that there is a streamlined approach to avoid delays and to avoid the prevention of worth-while projects from going ahead. There must be something in place so that there will be clear lines of communication on the policy side between officials of the Ministry of State for Economic Development and the Minister's officials who are responsible for Industrial and Regional Development, Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the DREE program.
June 27, 1983


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The last speaker referred to the Minister of Trade in the Bill. I wonder whether he could point out at what page it is so that we could follow his questioning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, that is hardly a point of order. I think the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion should be allowed to comment upon this last supplementary question, and I hope at that point we could proceed to the next speaker.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, there is no other direct involvement by other departments. This is a direct delivery program implemented by my Department and my Department only. With respect to the PEMD program, the Program for Export Market Development, we deliver it out of our regional offices on behalf of the Department of External Affairs. That is just a delivery mechanism, but under the new program all applicants across Canada apply under the Bill only to our Department. Obviously we consult other departments from time to time. For example, if it is a resource question, we consult with the line department to ensure that what we are doing does not impact upon a policy decision which that particular department might be undertaking.
The reason for the whole restructuring, the reason for this program, is to streamline the process. There will be delays caused by lack of information to make a proper decision, but there should be no delays caused by the bureaucracy in terms of interdepartmental discussion because there is not interdepartmental discussion on every single application.
Also as the Bill indicates, the Minister can institute private sector advisory boards, which I want to discuss with members of the parliamentary committee tomorrow. I would like to know whether they would like to see private sector advisory boards reinstituted, for example, as we did with the Enterprise Development Program where we had private sector people assess applications for Government contributions of $500,000 or more. We think that is a good avenue to follow, but it would be left to the Minister. It is one of the items I want to discuss with committee members tomorrow.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in an attempt to assist the debate. I am trying to find out to what bill or clause the questioner referred. Was he referring to Bill C-165 or Bill C-152?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, this is hardly a point of order. At this point the Chair has extended the time period of the first speaker. I understand there was an agreement for three lead-off speakers and the Chair, with the consent of the House, would like to proceed to the next speaker.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank you for extending the question period. The questions were very useful and the Minister's answers will assist us a great deal in our deliberations.
Industrial and Regional Development Act
The Canadian family of Provinces and Territories has some poor and rich cousins. Since we captured our national dream and pushed the railroad through the mountains to the Pacific and developed our central manufacturing base with protective tariffs, we have witnessed the decline of the Atlantic region and the emergence of disparities which have grown and are with us today.
Distance from markets, high transportation costs, lack of capital, lack of entrepreneurship and associated skills are reflected in high unemployment, lack of industrial growth and a marked dependence on the transfer of federal funds. Wages and earned incomes remain well below the Canadian average. Other areas of Canada, notably the Gaspe region of Quebec, northern Ontario and specific regions in northern and western Canada can point to the same problems.
In the 1960s the federal Government addressed this problem with the ARDA program and the fund for rural economic development. Next came the Atlantic Development Board. In 1963 the Area Development Agency began providing assistance to the manufacturing sector. This assistance was quite properly directed to areas of high unemployment, but unfortunately it excluded major population and industrial centres in the Maritimes where new industries had the best chance of succeeding.
In 1968 we witnesed the formation of the first government department to deal exclusively with the problem of regional disparities. The special areas program and the Regional Development Incentives Act were powerful instruments in attacking the problem and together composed a clear indication of a strong dedication to regional development policy.
The initial thrust of DREE was to provide economic development in the lagging region east of Trois-Rivieres and certain areas where special needs existed. In time the areas designated for assistance were broadened and the impact of the DREE effort was diluted both by the enlargement of the scope of its operation and in the reduction of real dollars made available for that purpose.
In 1982 the reorganization for economic development split DREE in two and buried it in two departments of Government. DRIE now combines the program functions of DREE with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Given our national economic problems and the high unemployment facing Canada at the moment, it is understandable and desirable that the Government address these serious national issues, but surely the Government cannot be forgiven for not also addressing the problems of regional disparities. It should address both problems.
Any further diminution in the flow of funds to poorer regions can have very serious short-run consequences for individuals and provincial Governments and ultimately the national economy. In the long term it could be a catastrophe. The federal Government is now restricting the transfer of

June 27, 1983
Industrial and Regional Development Act
funds to provincial Governments with established funding programs and equalization by changes in the terms of the programs and by limiting increases.
I have no quarrel with better control over federal funds, but I do quarrel with the failure of the federal Government to recognize the impact that the reduction in transfer payments has on governments in the Atlantic Provinces which are nearly 50 per cent dependent on federal funds to maintain existing programs and standards of living.
The ultimate goal of federal development policies should be to create in the poorer Provinces a secondary manufacturing capability employing more wage earners and creating more taxpayers, so that ultimately the poorer Provinces can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and have less dependency on transfer payments and equalization grants. At the moment, their limited ability to raise revenues through taxation or borrowing makes further reductions in the level of services an alternative which they are seeking desperately to avoid.
Also under assault by the madhatters in the Department of Transport is the historic and traditional assistance given to producers, manufacturers and shippers in the Atlantic Provinces since 1927 in the form of maritime freight rate subsidies. Any further reduction in this assistance could be disastrous to the Atlantic Provinces. It could mean a loss of $64 million to the Atlantic Provinces which would have to be made up by growers, industrialists and manufacturers which depend on transportation facilities, both within the Maritimes and for westbound exports. It could mean lost markets, lost incomes and lost jobs. It could mean declining use of regional resources for materials and decimation of competitive positions in central Canada.
The Maritimes population base is too small to absorb all its production. Major manufacturing plants have to sell outside the region, overseas, in the central committee market and, to a lesser degree, the western Canadian market. The long-haul shippers of Atlantic Canada have to put their goods in these markets at competitive prices or lose them. If the subsidies are removed, the Altantic manufacturing base, which we seek to develop, would be weakened and further centralization in Quebec and Ontario would follow. The rates have already been reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent with the prospect of complete elimination and utter catastrophe now facing Mari-timers.
The proposal contained in the Bill now before us will form the basis of DREE assistance in the future. It is a reformation of the Enterprises Development Program, the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program, the Regional Development Incentives Program and Support in Technology Enhanced Productivity Programs which have been restructured. Under this Bill, firms anywhere in Canada can qualify for assistance, which varies in degree according to a development index calculated for each of Canada's 260 census divisions. The index will be based on unemployment rates, the rate of employer per population ratio, income and the fiscal capacity of each Province.
The development index does not form a part of the Bill but is spelled out in the regulations, a copy of which has been given to us. The index contained in the regulations is different from the one mentioned by the Minister before committee a few weeks ago. Following our initial criticisms, and it is to his credit, it appears to have been improved, but since it is contained in regulations and not in the Bill, we do not know what it will be three weeks from now or even 30 weeks from now. Based on the value of the index, each census division will qualify for increases in levels of assistance according to its relative disparity on a four-tiered scale.
The new four-tier program represents a shift in direction from previous development initiatives and is a cause of some concern. I will express some potential programs. The Bill reshapes existing programs, many of which, like the Enterprises Development Program, were unsuited to the need of smaller companies in the Altantic Provinces and other areas suffering from disparity, and the mere restructuring of their application is unlikely to increase their impact.
Another major concern is that the impact of the development index is such that it does not operate at its maximum in the larger centres of industrial growth in the Atlantic Provinces and discriminates against them where average wages are higher and employment potential is better. It fails to recognize that it is in these larger centres that many people in outlying regions go seeking employment in industry and where they have a better likelihood of finding it. A failure to permit expansion to the maximum degree in these areas is a failure to provide the maximum number of potential jobs in industry that are badly needed. I am suggesting to the Minister that all of the Atlantic Provinces should be designated as qualifying for the highest tier of development assistance available.
The proposals contained in the legislation before us do not recognize the need for a concentrated approach to economic development beyond the boundary of a single census division. Consequently, many of the new programs can have limited application in the smaller census divisions in Atlantic Canada which have a limited industrial base and weak infrastructure.
Further, the incremental incentives appear inadequate to influence decisions on new plant locations and appear designed instead to concentrate on innovation and marketing, with the bulk of the funding going to the central manufacturing areas of the country. There is little stimulus to influence new plants to locate in the have-not regions that suffer greatest from disparities, and this is an essential element in any regional development policy.
In this latter regard, I would suggest to the Government that it consider the employment of a 150 per cent tax incentive, not as a grant but as a tax credit payable out of future tax by firms locating in areas that suffer from regional disparities, such as the Atlantic Provinces and the Gaspe region of Quebec. This incentive would be payable in respect to the capital cost of a new plant or an expanding plant and the cost of labour for the first three years of the plant's operation. This would not attract a single cent from our national Treasury because it would be
June 27, 1983

paid out of the income tax which such a firm would otherwise pay and is not now paying until the cost of the investment plus 50 per cent has been recovered. This proposal has worked effectively in other parts of the world, such as New Hampshire, and it is a proposal that has been brought forward by the prestigious New Brunswick Industrial Development Council.
I would also like to see the Government consider making the major ports in the Atlantic Provinces duty-free areas where low-cost products from the Third World can be imported and assembled in Canadian assembly plants according to Canadian specifications, using Canadian technology and Canadian workers and then be exported to markets of the world, the same as is done in Amsterdam, Singapore and 16 ports in the United States of America under its highly successful DISC Program.
Clearly there should be a renewed and continued strong commitment made by the federal Government to the development of the economy of Provinces that suffer from the effects of regional disparity so that those Provinces can become less dependent on transfers from the federal Government. They key to such a change is reduction in regional disparities by lowering unemployment rates and taxation levels and raising per capita incomes.
High transportation costs, a weak industrial base and limited infrastructure are fundamental issues that must be addressed. I suggest that economic development can best be achieved within a framework of co-operation between federal and provincial Governments and industry and labour. Consideration must be given to the winners in the Canadian economy and the promotion and growth of an industrial base must surely be founded on the strength of the resource base and access to markets. Infrastructure development has a strong supporting role.
The Government's development policies have been consistently eroded by its monetary policy, which has been insensitive to the unfair and unequal impact it has on disadvantaged regions such as Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canada is the first hit, the hardest hit and the last to recover from the Government's tight money policies and the Bank of Canada's heedless and stubborn refusal to consider ameliorating measures.
The bottom line is that there is no longer a federal Government department with the sole mandate of promoting development in the least developed regions of the country. The demise of DREE and the broadening of areas for regional development suggest a change in the singular emphasis put on the reduction or elimination of regional disparities. This comes at a time when other federal programs, including equalization payments and transportation subsidies, are coming under review.
Details for implementation of the programs outlined in this Bill and the dollars that are to be made available for each region have not yet been made public. The notational estimates and comparisons between existing programs and new programs on a regional basis are important. We feel that it is essential that full disclosure of the nature of the new program and its
Industrial and Regional Development Act
dollar impact on each region be made in committee to permit a proper evaluation. Is the new program another cosmetic or can it be adapted to the needs of our regions and made to address our serious national and regional problems? I sincerely hope it can, and that is why we are making constructive suggestions and looking forward with great anticipation to a good dialogue on this very important measure in committee.
Canada urgently needs policies to stimulate innovation, improve productivity and enable Canadian enterprises to put Canadian goods in foreign markets at competitive prices. Canada needs policies to put Canadian goods in Canadian markets at competitive prices. Canada needs policies to address regional disparities. To a degree, this Bill seeks to address all three needs, and we must have a good discourse in committee in order to determine to the best of our ability as Parliamentarians whether it achieves each of those objectives. That is why I look forward to seeing the Bill go to committee as soon as possible, and I join the Minister in that regard.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to ask the Hon. Member a question. I want to put a few statements on record.
I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be afforded this opportunity today to respond to Bill C-165, an Act to provide for financial assistance for industrial development in all regions of Canada. I want to say that we in the New Democratic party are more than anxious to get this Bill into committee as expeditiously as possible in order to carry out the fine tuning of Bill C-165 that we feel is necessary and get it back into the House for quick passage in order that it can be enacted early in the month of July.
1 must say, Mr. Speaker, that I find it interesting that the reason we are discussing this Bill today, a Bill that recognizes the reality of regional inequality in the country, goes back to the very beginning of Confederation when Sir John A. Macdonald, a Conservative Prime Minister, introduced something called the national policy. In this policy, the central part of Canada was identified as the area where Canada would do its manufacturing and Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario and northern Quebec, the Prairies, British Columbia and the Territories would be subservient to central Canada. These areas would be the hinterland to the industrial heartland made up of the lower St. Lawrence Valley.
We have now recognized, Mr. Speaker, that not only must these regional inequalities be overcome if we are to bring equity and justice to the Canadian economic landscape, but I think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) and the Minister responsible for regional expansion has had to agree that the present policies are anything but equitable. I would simply refer to two or three of the existing policies that I think demonstrate most clearly the injustices that are inherent in existing Government programs when it comes to providing economic opportunities for all parts of Canada.
In the period April to November, 1982 one Province received $30 million in development incentives while British

June 27, 1983
Industrial and Regional Development Act
Columbia received only $558,000 during that same period. On a worker basis, Mr. Speaker, this averaged out to $10.48 for every worker in that unnamed Province and only 41 cents for every worker in British Columbia. Similar figures for 1981 show an even stronger trend in favour of this special Province. That Province received $25.77 per worker compared to only 56 cents per worker in British Columbia. While we recognize that there are differences between Provinces, I believe this demonstrates unquestionably that present Government programs, for a whole variety of reasons, favour certain constituencies and certain regions of Canada.
Another demonstration of that is the work presently being done by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. That corporation is in place to bring foreign requests for goods and supplies to Canadian suppliers of those goods and supplies. A few weeks ago in the Finance Committee, representatives of the Canadian Commercial Corporation were asked what percentage of the business done by the corporation was done in conjunction with suppliers from the Province of British Columbia. Many of us were not surprised when the answer turned out to be just less than 1 per cent. Just less than 1 per cent of all of the business done by the Canadian Commercial Corporation is done in conjunction with firms from the Province of British Columbia.
All sorts of examples of the really profound injustice attached to the various Government programs could be indentified. One could say that these programs are based, by and large, on patronage and on porkbarrelling techniques.
I think that some of the best listening to be done these days, Mr. Speaker, is to be done by Members of Parliament when listening to members of such Departments as Industry, Trade and Commerce and DREE who have resigned from positions that they have perhaps held for a number of years and are now involved in some other pursuits and they sit down to reflect off the record to Members of Parliament what really has gone on in those Departments. I believe that what one finds, Mr. Speaker, is a considerable amount of what can only be described as patronage.
I am pleased to say that the present Minister, by introducing Bill C-165, has taken a major step to eliminate that kind of behaviour and in fact to make an effort to deliver an equitable industrial incentive program for all parts of Canada. We were disappointed with much of the behaviour of DREE over the past few years. While we recognize that many positive initiatives were taken by DREE, we also recognize that vast areas of the country were not designated. Areas of western Canada where for years and years the unemployment rate was 20 per cent or 25 per cent still have not been designated. The latest fiasco with the ILAP designation is almost laughable. Some areas whose problems did not begin to approach the greater problems of other areas were designated because of the political bias that exists in the system. The work done on Bill C-165, however, does much to dispel the sour taste associated with so many Government programs designed to provide industrial incentives.
The New Democratic Party feels that by identifying the various tiers the Bill will identify the criteria required to bring a number of industrial location factors into play. I should like to identify four or five problem areas that should be clarified in committee. There are problems for the small business sector with this Bill. I think every Member of the House recognizes the fact that the small business sector of the economy has been hardest hit in recent times. The "mom and pop" operations in the country are struggling to survive. They hope for a positive response from the Government as they see their large cousins receiving all kinds of financial handouts or making favourable arrangements with financial institutions. They themselves, however, are fighting the battle in the trenches without very much ammunition.
We must ask whether Bill C-165 provides encouragement for the small business sector. I realize the Bill must have limits but this sector of the business community must receive very serious consideration in the provision of industrial development grants.
The fact that the development index is found only in the regulations attached to the Bill means that the index can be changed by the Department without difficulty. Members of the committee will want to make sure that the present index has been arrived at carefully and that the formula used to trigger the provision of incentives for a particular region will perform equitably across the country.
In committee the Minister will have to let us know exactly how much money is attached to the program. I am sure the Minister and his Department will be sensitive to the rgional distribution of funds in view of their commitment to decentralization. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has pointed out that this might also be interpreted as centralizing and moving away from the close federal-provincial discussions of the past. Nevertheless, as the Government indicates its intention to decentralize decision making for industrial incentive grants, the regional distribution of funds across the country must reflect the economic needs in any particular year.
The Minister has said that emphasis will be placed on one-stop shopping for the small enterpreneur but we have to wonder just how that will take place. I certainly agree with Members who spoke earlier and said that the average business person having to journey to Ottawa to beg for funds for their business or for a particular region or municipality is something that we must stop. We hope that the Bill will accomplish this. We wonder, however, whether the availability of one-stop shopping is well known to the business community. The maze of red tape that surrounds Government programs discouraged many in the small business community from seeking help. The large firms have professionals on staff who make the approach for them but the small entrepreneur must be able to go directly to a source which is accessible if the program is to be equitably administered across Canada.
I hope that when the committee has an opportunity to examine the fine points of the Bill and the regulations in detail
June 27, 1983

the Minister will indicate how he plans to serve the very small entrepreneur. The Bill is designed to provide financial assistance for industrial development in all regions of Canada but it fails to address the serious problems faced by small entrepreneurs and native people. I realize that any Bill cannot be all things to all groups but 1 hope that in committee the Minister will address the ways and means by which the native communities can be assisted with industrial and economic development.
We are quite enthusiastic about the Bill, Mr. Speaker, because of what it can do for communities in the country. As an example I will use the community of Kamloops, British Columbia, but I could use any community. The legislation seems almost too good to be true at this point; it almost seems just to have come from the Liberal benches. Let me take the example of a firm in the Tier II ranking which is interested in locating in the Kamloops region. It would be eligible for up to 50 per cent for innovation, more specifically research and development funding; 35 per cent funding for capital costs for a new or expanded veature; 35 per cent support for modernization of plant or expansion of plant; 60 per cent assistance for introducing new marketing techniques and approaches; and 25 per cent support for renewal.
I believe that is going to assist those development officers or development commissioners, whatever title they may have in different parts of Canada, when they go about approaching firms to relocate in their regions, whether it is Canadian firms wishing to open up a new branch, whether it is larger corporations which might be interested in opening up facilities in Canada, or perhaps investors wanting to open up a new venture, particularly in one of the non-growth areas of our country. I believe it will assist them considerably when they are able to go to an investor and say: "This is what we are able to offer you at this point; based on the existing economic situation in our community, these are the incentives we have in place which are provided by the federal Government". I believe this is going to have the potential of making quite a substantial improvement, Mr. Speaker.
In closing, 1 would simply say that as we move to a program which I believe will be a more equitable program in terms of providing industrial and economic opportunities to the regions of Canada, other than Central Canada, which obviously has a number of built-in advantages already, we must be careful when we are simply forcing growth into areas where it may normally not go. There is an underlying assumption that by providing incentives and grants we can make an enterprise economically viable almost by definition. We all know that this is not true, Mr. Speaker. The list is long of all kinds of economic endeavours in this country which are laughable when it comes to economic viability. Even at the moment of their inception, people knew these incentives were not being provided because of an economic need which was real. They were not economically viable but were politically viable. It made political sense.
Industrial and Regional Development Act
I go back to what I said at the beginning of my speech, Mr. Speaker, that for too many years we have seen industrial development associated more closely with political patronage than with the development of a real, sound economic infrastructure in this country. I simply say in closing that we must recognize that growth can take place only in areas where it does make sense. While the Government can step in and provide a serious and positive partner in that introduction, again we cannot create magic on the economic landscape either, Mr. Speaker. We in the New Democratic Party are looking seriously and enthusiastically at the discussions in committee in the next number of hours and look forward to bringing this legislation back into the House for relatively rapid passage in order to have it introduced early in July, 1983.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the spokesperson on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I believe I detected a rather major shift in emphasis on his part. In particular, near the end of the Hon. Member's address he was talking about the need for economic viability to be a criterion for Government programs. I am wondering if the Hon. Member is signalling to the House a difference in attitude towards some uneconomic activities of the Government? Examples, Mr. Speaker, might in fact be Petro-Canada and Canadair which have demonstrated quite conclusively to the Canadian people that they are not economically viable without significant Government assistance. Would the Hon. Member tell us whether or not the NDP is shifting and changing its attitude towards Government support for Petro-Canada and for Canadair?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question of the Hon. Member in that it permits me an opportunity now to mention two particular areas, specicifically Petro-Canada and Canadair, and other Government Crown corporations. We in this Party have always felt that there was an opportunity for Government to involve itself in a most positive way with economic infrastructure building in this country, be it in the energy sector, transportation, communications, or whatever.
The important point is that if we are going to have a Crown corporation, it is important that it be run as a Crown corporation and not run simply as a corporation. There is a profound difference. Because the Government has run certain Crown corporations in such a way that they duplicate the Domes, the Massey-Fergusons, the Chryslers of the world-in other words, they were mismanaged, like many of the private corporations-we, of course, are concerned, as every Canadian is, that that is not the kind of management we would like.
It we want examples of Government and industry working in the most positive, creative and innovative way, we must look at the economic and industrial leaders of the world today. We must look at countries such as West Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway where, in spite of the difficulties which they also are having during this recessionary period, their economies are diversified and strong and are rebounding more quickly than most. One could also tack

June 27, 1983
Adjournment Motion
on the country of Japan. However, I put that at the bottom of the list because all of the other countries have had their economies developed under social democratic governments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has some concern about relevance to the debate before us. I will permit a supplementary question, but I suggest that relevance might be borne in mind by the Hon. Member.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes it is difficult to be specifically relevant but I will try. The Hon. Member has brought up the issue of Sweden. I am wondering if he is signalling a different sense about user fees in terms of medical care-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is straying from the issue of the Bill before us.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for the digression. I will get right to the heart of the matter. In takling about the need for regional strengthening in the economy of Canada, the Hon. Member brought up the issue of transportation. One of the areas which has had a less than adequate transportation system is the West. The Crow rate is an example. I am wondering if, through the Hon. Member's comments, he is signalling a change on the part of the NDP regarding subsidies to the railroads in western Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the issue before us is a different measure and the rule of relevance has to have some application in the House.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)- Human Rights-Internment of Japanese-Canadians-Payment of compensation, (b) Form of compensation; the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Supply and Services- Percentage of procurement from Manitoba suppliers, (b) Request that Manitoba orders be increased; the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-The Administration-Use of executive aircraft by Ministers, (b) Status of passengers on flight to Antigua.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Vercheres (Mr. Loiselle), Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Bachand), Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne), Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens), La Prairie (Mr. Deniger), Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau), Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe), Charlesbourg (Mr. Bussieres), Levis (Mr. Gourde), Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson), Quebec-East (Mr. Duquet) and Rimouski-Temiscouata (Mrs. Cote), has been filed with the Chair pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed.


FILING OF OBJECTION TO REPORT OF COMMISSION FOR PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mrs. Erola), Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters), Sudbury (Mr. Frith), Algoma (Mr. Foster), London West (Mr. Burghardth), Guelph (Mr. Schroder), Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren), Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin), Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) and Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), has been filed with the Chair pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed.


INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lumley that Bill C-165, an Act to provide for financial
June 27, 1983
[Stage Direction]
assistance for industrial development in all regions of Can-dada, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bill is now going to the Regional Expansion Committee, and will be discussed tomorrow in committee. Then, I suppose, it will be brought back to the House later that day, or perhaps on Wednesday. If it is possible to get an expedited copy of the transcript of the committee debate, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, I would like to finish the form. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have now had second reading of the Bill and declared the Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development. In regard to the request, as far as the Committee report is concerned, the Chair will take note of the request made by the Hon. Member.


ATHLETIC CONTESTS AND EVENTS POOLS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 19, 1983, consideration of Bill C-95, an Act to provide for Government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture; and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Reid, St. Catharines).
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place in opposition to Bill C-95, a Bill to establish a sports pool, particularly to speak to the first amendment, Motion No. 2, which calls for the striking of Clause 14(b) which states:
To conduct and manage, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council, such lawful gaming activities as the Governor in Council directs.
We have all seen how Crown corporations of the Government have conducted and managed our affairs vis-a-vis the post office, Canadair, de Havilland, et cetera, and we have also seen the regulations made by the Governor in Council which, in essence, come down from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). However, before going into this part of it in depth, I would like to say that as a Member of Parliament one of our many rights, one which I prize, is our availability to what is known as the householder. This small booklet, composed by
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Members and distributed to each household, can be mailed out four times a year, as Your Honour is aware.
In each of my householders, I include a questionnaire covering a wide range of topics. I do this intentionally because as a Member of Parliament I am only an extension of my constituents and their views. It is important to me that 1 reflect as accurately as possible these views. I receive a substantial number of responses to each questionnaire, into the many hundreds. The results of these polls greatly assist me in determining the feelings of my constituents on issues of the day.
In July of last year, one of the questions posed in my householder was as follows: "Do you favour a sports betting pool administered by the federal Government?" Seventy-five per cent of those responding answered no, 70 per cent said yes, and 8 per cent were undecided. Obviously, the majority of the people in my riding are against the creation of a sports pool. I stand here today, as is my duty, to register their opinion in this House.
The striking of the clauses is what we are discussing, and Clause 14(b) would allow the sports pool corporation to conduct and manage such lawful gaming activities as the Government directed. A federal re-entry, if you will, into the lottery field would thus be possible for any game imaginable. It is just too broad. Again, it involves the element as to whether we trust the people across the way to come back into the lottery field. Video slot machines paying cash for a win instead of a free replay is one game, and the Government might now be considering something such as that. We find the clause is just absolutely too offensive to the Provinces, with which we have an agreement on lotteries, and too open-ended in the directions that it can take to let it go unchallenged. That is why I am on my feet.
As I just intimated, this new lottery or sports pool would involve a Crown corporation. It is only a few short weeks since the Auditor General, in his annual report to Parliament, expressed strong unease and a clear caution with regard to Crown corporations, something he rightly termed "subgovernments". We are all aware of what has been happening. All one must do is pick up this morning's newspaper to see the Auditor General again decrying what happened with Canadair.
Does the Government see the problem? Does the Government hear the warnings? I think not. Does the Government say anything in response? No, it just blames management. Yet in this very clause it wants to take over management and responsibility again in the sports pool. It wants to create another Crown corporation. That is its arrogant answer, as if we had not had enough Canadairs.
The sports pool corporation to be created by this Bill will conduct and manage a federal sports pool. Why should there be another Crown corporation? Why should there be a sports pool to begin with? The Government just loves Crown corporations. It has over 300 of them now, most of them unaudited and uncontrolled. Air Canada, VIA Rail, the Commercial Investment Corporation and others are available to the Government to use as a means of rewarding its people, taking care of its own. There is Petro-Canada, which 69 per cent of

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Canadians do not go out of their way to use and which 45 per cent feel should be sold.
Is there another failed Liberal or miffed Liberal out there somewhere who needs some place to hang his hat and some money to line his pocket? Is that why the Government needs another Crown corporation?


Mr. McDermid:: Yes.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: I think so, as my hon. colleague says. The Government says the sports pool is needed to aid fitness and amateur sport and arts and culture. Which cultured Liberal out there in the boonies is waiting for the call to show what a sport and how fit he is to run this newest enterprise? I a wait this appointment with bated breath. It will help fund the 1988 Calgary Olympics, we are told, and we are very pleased about that. We know that concerning anything that happens in Alberta, the money will be well spent. No one is denying that this event is worthy of our support, and we totally do support it. However, there must be a better, more sensible way of doing this, not a Jean Drapeau philosophy involved.
Back in the late 1960s, those same Montreal Olympics incurred a deficit of about $1 billion, and all three levels of Government, Montreal, Quebec and the federal Government, began looking for ways to pay the deficit. The Quebec Government suggested that the federal Government take over the Olympic lottery which was due to expire in 1976. As a result, Loto Canada was created. It, of course, was a Crown corporation. Loto Canada was given a three-year mandate, and its establishment was supported by all major political Parties, with the exception of the socialists to my left. The lottery made quite a great deal of money and the Government of the day, like the one now, warmed to the idea of carrying on this profitable undertaking. It meant more taxpayers' dollars to squander.
Early in 1979, a Bill was introduced in the House to make Loto Canada a permanent lottery corporation. Opposition support for this move was negative. Loto Canada had been scandal-ridden over the course of its existence. The Provinces argued that lotteries were a provincial area of concern and threatened court action. We in Opposition reminded the Government that it had promised in 1976 not to extend the lottery unless the Provinces consented. The issue was finally put to the voters of Canada. The Liberal platform called for the continuation of the lottery under redefined terms. We called for the dismantling of Loto Canada in return for an agreement with the Provinces on lottery revenues. In my view as a federalist, it was a very wise decision. We won the election and soon after gave the Provinces exclusive jurisdiction over lotteries in return for $24 million annually, indexed to 1979. This money was to be split fifty-fifty between arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport, a far cry from what the Bill before us is providing.
The Provinces also agreed to assume responsibility for the federal share of the costs related to the expansion, upgrading and renovation of three National Hockey Leagues arenas. Shortly after the agreement was signed, Parliament dissolved for the 1980 election. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised they would do everything possible to get the
federal Government back in the lottery business. However, once in office they were informed by their legal advisers that the Conservative Government's agreement was binding enough to make any breach of that agreement a serious matter.
I would now like to turn to the crux of the whole issue. The loophole-lookers took over and the loophole they latched on to was that of a sports pool. With a lottery ticket, winning is simply a matter of luck. A sports pool ticket meant involving some skill. That was the loophole for the federal Government to break its word to the Provinces and get back into the lottery business. The reason was the Government's distinction between "luck" and "skill". Based on this reasoning, the Government announced in the fall of 1981 that it would seek the establishment of the Sports Pool Corporation.
I see that my time is running out. I had a lot more that I wished to say on the subject but suffice it to say that we on this side of the House and Canadians do not trust the Government to run a sports pool. We do not know what it will do with the money. The definition is too broad. We think that Clause 14(6) should be deleted completely. We believe that regional and provincial disparity exists and that the federal Government has no business adding to the problem. I strongly urge all Members to consider this Bill very carefully and not aid and abet the Government in its sweeping powers under a sports lottery.


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to say a few words about Bill C-95. My colleague has pointed out some of the pitfalls to be anticipated in an inept Government trying to handle a potentially scandal-ridden business.
I would confine my remarks to the potential effect that this Bill will have on one of Canada's valuable and loved industries, the horse racing business. It could be seriously damaged by the loss of some $300 million which will be taken from the disposable income of Canadian earners.
This penchant for raising money, a form of hidden taxes, by a Government which has a penchant for raising money from any source whatever totally disregards the damage which will be done to this important taxpaying business. Surely some consideration should be given to this valuable industry other than just excluding it from pool betting.
Who will protect or replace the lost jobs, the lost revenues and the lost enjoyment of Canadians if standardbred or thoroughbred horse racing is damaged beyond recovery? The Government-inspired recession is already taking its toll of the nation's racetracks. Attendance is down over 2 per cent this year and betting is down over 3 per cent. That is the official statement. In fact, in the last quarter the reality is that attendance and betting are down approximately 15 per cent.
Horse racing goes back some 3,500 years. It is an old and honoured entertainment medium. It is a sport. An afternoon in the sun watching horses run or taking one's spouse out for dinner at the track is far superior to keeping a clammy lottery
June 27, 1983

ticket in one's pocket in the hope of becoming an instant millionaire against totally ridiculous odds. The track does not have the climate of a Nevada casino. It is a place where people go to have a thoroughly good time, not lose much money and perhaps even make a little. But it is always to enjoy the sport.
The horse racing business employs 50,000 people or more in Canada. These people depend on the profitability of the industry, as in any other business, for their livelihood. In effect, racetracks are the employer of horsemen, trainers, farriers, veterinarians, farmers who grow the feed and so on. It is even the employer of people who serve in the restaurants and gasoline operators who sell gasoline to the people who come to the racetrack. The spin-offs are wide and unlimited.
There are approximately 15,000 registered race horses in Canada today. One can see that there are three jobs for Canadians for every horse that is raced. There are 3,000 throughbred and standardbred breeders in Canada who employ grooms, trainers and others, all of whom pay taxes. There are 10,000 race horse-owners in Canada. All of these
50,000	people are already in some jeopardy as tracks cut back on the size of their purses and costs because of the general recession.
The largest single sporting event, certainly in North America if not in the world, is the Kentucky Derby in Louisville, Kentucky, a city of 300,000 people. Just yesterday, thousands of Canadians enjoyed the Queen's Plate at Woodbine in Toronto, and others the Confederation Cup at Flamboro in the standardbred racing business.
Simply consider some of the people involved in horse racing and some of the skills involved, not to mention the investment dollars, to raise Canadian horse breeding to world standards in order to appreciate that this is indeed a full-fledged industry. They include the trainers, the drivers, the jockeys, the owners who are people with the finances and the love of horse racing. They are people like E. P. Taylor. Look what he has done with Windfield Farms and the breeding industry and racing in Ontario. He has a great success record. As well, there is Louie Levesque, the Speers family on the Prairies and dozens of smaller operators who are dedicated to the achievement of excellence in the breeding business in Canada.
What is the point here? The point is that the $300 million which will be removed from the disposable income of Canadians will adversely affect the racing business. Let me cite a quotation:
1 want to say that there is every indication that the operations of these sports pools will not harm horse racing in any way.
That was said by the Hon. Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) to the Communications and Culture Committee hearings on Bill C-95 last December, 1982. 1 can tell the Hon. Minister that the $300 million taken from the pockets of Canadians will affect this industry at a time when the recession and proliferation of multi-channel satellite TV video games and other competing interests will severely affect the racing business and keep people away from the tracks.
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
The tracks need more money for special events, track improvements and public relations in general, not less money while Canadians buy lottery tickets which support nothing but an unproductive and increasing bureaucracy. At a time when this valuable tax-paying industry is scraping for every dollar, just as other businesses in Canada are today, this is no time to be leaching $300 million out of taxpayers' pockets in competition. What Canada does not need now is another lottery and another Government money grab. If culture, sports and medical research are deserving of increased funding, and 1 believe they are, they should be funded adequately by regular governmental support after due parliamentary debate and should not be subject to the vagaries of revenue pools based on the variable degree of public support in the buying of lottery tickets.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the Government is fed up with arresting bookies for taking bets on football games and is now making it all quite legal and respectable in the hope of turning a quick profit.
I want to make it clear for the record that Bill C-95, which seeks to establish a Government's sports pool, is blatant interference in the affairs of the Provinces of this nation. It is greatly exaggerated in terms of potential for profit and will have a negative effect, I believe, in many other areas as well. Lotteries have traditionally been the exclusive domain of the Provinces; that is, until Loto Canada was voted into existence in order to help finance the huge deficit incurred by the 1976 Olympics.
Loto Canada had the support of all major political parties mainly because it was considered only a temporary fundraising device and contained an agreement to share revenue with the Provinces; that is, one-eighth of the profits. However, the Liberals, following along in their tradition of "Give them an inch and they will take a mile", decided that if three-years of Loto Canada is a good thing, then indeed a permanent Loto Canada would indeed be wonderful. However, here in the Opposition corner we believe in the merit principle; that is, if a notion has merit we support it. But after three years of existence Loto Canada had lost its shine. It had been scandal-ridden over the course of its very short existence. The Provinces were threatening court action and wanted the complete pie, not just a slice of the action. As well, we knew full well that the Government had promised not to go ahead with extensions of the lottery corporation without the consent of the Provinces. Therefore, in our opinion, Loto Canada was no longer worthy of merit and we ceased to support it.
The sports pool was the offspring of the controversy over Loto Canada. The Government, squandering money so merrily, finally had to think of new and tricky ways to raise it. It was aware of the Provinces' continued opposition to any form of federal lottery. Not only that, but the federal Government was aware of the Opposition Parties' continued abhorrence of any proposal to create a clone of Loto Canada. Therefore, some bright light in a Government office came up with the idea of having a sports pool.

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
A sports pool could not be considered to be a bona fide lottery and therefore the federal Government would be immune to any attacks from the Provinces on the basis that revenues thus raised belonged to the latter. Not only that but the element of skill involved in selecting a winner in a baseball or table tennis match removed the potential objection that these things would attract foolish gamblers throwing away their life's earnings without a hope of winning.
The federal Government hoped this would take care of church groups and other dissenters who feel that gambling is not necessarily one of life's most desirable occupations. Not only was this form of gambling less risky and therefore more desirable for people on which to blow their pay cheques but the proceeds would go to fitness and amateur sport. You would not refuse to buy Girl Guide cookies, would you, Mr. Speaker? After all, the proceeds are going to a useful and well established group. Unfortunately, such a comparison does not ring true. The Government is trying to tell us that the proceeds from its new corporation are going to go to good causes. Why not be honest and tell us that, after all is said and done and the hefty salaries have been paid to all the fat cat executives who will be appointed as heads of this new sports pool corporation, probably only peanuts will be left for the amateur sport community?


Steve Eugene Paproski: And they are all Grits.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: And they are all Grits, right.


John Horton McDermid: And the odd NDP.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: What is the real effect of funding from lotteries, sports pools and the like? 1 will tell you, Mr. Speaker. When an athletic group or volunteer organization tries to go door to door to collect funds, people will say: "I'm sorry, I can't support you. You guys get your money from the Government, go ahead and apply to the Grits; apply to the Government." In effect, the money coming from the Government effectively deters normal fund raising. When the fine print is read, there is not even an assurance to the taxpayer that the funds generated by the sports pool will even go to the proper and most desirable places. Some of the proposed beneficiaries of the sports pool include fitness and amateur sport, arts and culture, medical research, the Calgary Olympics and worthy capital projects. What proportions are to go to each body is one question I would ask. What is the definition of a worthy capital project? Would it be something built in my riding as a Conservative Member? It would be wonderful if the House of Commons were made aware of the specifics of this deal, thus helping to avoid some of the scandal involved in the Loto Canada fiasco. There should be no wording in the proposed Bill which leaves potential for abuse. Not only that, but with so many beneficiaries, no one segemnt is likely to receive a significant benefit from the winnings. That is, of course, assuming that the sports pool is profitable at all. We have no guarantee of that.
The Minister responsible has high hopes for the success of the sports pool. He states optimistically that the net annual return will be in the order of $80 million. A more realistic assessment was provided by the Ontario Minister of Tourism and Recreation. He puts the gross annual return of such an endeavour to be in the area of $30 million to $40 million. This is based on the dismal weekly sales figures of the Quebec hockey pool. If you cannot sell hockey in Quebec, then you cannot sell lemonade in the desert or a sports pool to Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: In other words, this one sounds like a loser.


An Hon. Member:: It is a racket.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: An Hon. Member says it is a racket. It is interesting to note to what extent the Government will go to promote one of its ill fated schemes. It is even going so far as to change the Criminal Code to allow the federal Government alone to operate sports pools.


John Horton McDermid: So the Grits will not be criminals any more.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: So the Grits will not be criminals. Isn't that something? The Provinces will be able to join the action, provided they come to an agreement, which you can bet will be enormously beneficial to the federal Government, the Grits. The bothersome part about all this is that the Government can now do what private citizens cannot. We have wiretapping, distilling of liquor and now the operation of a legalized bookie joint.
The Progressive Conservative Party suggests three basic amendments to the proposed Bill C-95. The main intent of these amendements is to clarify the wording. That is first. Unfortunately, we cannot passively accept any proposals where the wording is so vague as to encourage meddling in future. We, in this Party, know all about vague wording. We sit here in Question Period daily. We know the kinds of answers we get from Government Members and Cabinet Ministers.
Since the Conservative Party prides itself on clear answers and leans toward simplicity of format rather than misleading vagueness, we propose that Clause 14(b) be eliminated, this clause, which gives the Governor in Council the power to direct the corporation to manage unspecified lawful gaming "activities". Who knows what activities are meant here? Do you know, Mr. Speaker?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hanky-panky.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Hanky-panky, somebody says. Knowing that Bill C-95 contains amendments to the Criminal Code, is it not possible that further amendments could be made allowing the corporation to get into any activities whether or not currently lawful? I understand that under the terms now specified in Clause 14(b), a federal re-entry into the lottery field is possible. In fact, any game imaginable might become available, cloaked under the thinly veiled respectability afforded it by the
June 27, 1983

Government "seal of approval". For example, there will soon be available video slot machines which pay cash for a win instead of a free replay. Is it beyond reason to assume that this might be the next venture the Government gets into, given the inclusion of the words "gaming activities" in the Bill?
Our next amendment is one which strikes all proposed beneficiaries of the pool, save the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary. This is to ensure that certain athletic organizations which would benefit by the proposed legislation do not get their hopes up too high. If there were reason to believe that the proposal were going to be a long-term success, we would not have asked that that amendment be included. After reflection, it would seem to me to give the Government a chance to save face if the sports pool does not work out. The meagre profits would go to the Calgary Olympics and the legislation would die with the melting snow in the spring. After all, it is the Members of Parliament who are in the front lines of all this.
In conclusion, I would ask that Members of all Parties consider the objections to the proposed Bill, which I have raised. Can you, Hon. Members, in good conscience support such a proposal, after due consideration? I hope that your answer is no in its present form. I know what my answer is.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join this debate. I want to get something on the record right now in terms of the position the Government is taking with respect to a sports pool. The Government is speaking with a forked tongue. The Government is a prevaricator. The Government is telling the people of Canada a story exactly opposite to the truth. The Government is misleading the Canadian public with respect to the basis upon which it enters into the sports pool, and the Government is to be severely chastised by thinking Canadians for the position it has taken.
I want to explain this basic fundamental proposition that I put forward. It is a factual proposition which will be understood by the vast majority of Canadians. I will relate the history of this matter.
During the time when we were the Government of Canada, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) and the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) entered into an arrangement to get the federal Government out of the lottery business. They entered into an arrangement with provincial Governments by which it was agreed that provincial Governments would accept the responsibility of carrying on their existing lotteries and the federal Government under contract would remove itself from the position of carrying on lotteries on the federal side. When the Government across the way came into power, it was in a dilemma as to how to circumvent the contractual arrangement that had been entered into by the then Government of Canada. Of course, moral implications were not of concern, nor were the legal considerations, and it finally came upon a device known as the sports pool to take itself slightly out of the ambit of a lottery in the strict legal sense of the term.
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Now the Government has a system which was modelled upon Hockey-Select in the Province of Quebec. In order to justify this unfortunate departure from every sense of principle and legal commitment, it had to find a justification to say to Canadians, "Support us in the creation of this new sports pool". Then it glommed on to the Calgary Winter Olympics by saying to Canadians, "Everyone in Canada needs to support the Calgary Olympics which will take place in 1988, but in order to finance it we need the new sports pool legislation to be passed", ob
When I talk about prevarication, forked-tongue and the federal Government saying something contrary to the truth of the matter, this is an example which can be documented. The commitment of the federal Government to support the Calgary Olympics was not tied to any sports pool. In fact, there was no specific undertaking that the sports pool or any form of lottery or other gambling device would be used to support the Olympics. The commitment was clear and unequivocal. Even the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), who got to where he is today on the basis of being one of the outstanding counsel in the small debts courts of Quebec, will agree that this proposition was really not worthy of any government representing the people of Canada.
Another example of how the federal Government speaks out of both sides of its mouth was evident in the application made to the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec in which judgment was handed down on January 26, 1983. The applicant was the Attorney General of Canada, representing the Government of Canada; the respondent was Loto-Quebec; and the Attorney General of Quebec was an intervenor. It was an application for an injunction by the federal Government against the Province of Quebec to prevent it from carrying on Hockey-Select. I would like to indicate what was said by the federal Government on that occasion. Quoting from the judgment of Mr. Justice Rene Hurtubise who rendered his decision on January 26, 1983, he said:
We will first examine the arguments of the Attorney General of Canada.
Specifying that he is acting as guardian of justice and in the interests of the public ... which satisfies us as to his interest in this proceeding, the Attorney General of Canada puts forward principally the following arguments:
-positively, the contest Hockey-Select constitutes a pool-selling game or "a system designed to promote bookmaking, pool selling or betting on a sporting event, the whole being prohibited by Section 186 of the Criminal Code";
-negatively, Hockey-Select is not a lottery;
-alternatively, even if it was a lottery, Hockey-Select is a pari-mutuel system from the beginning to the end of the contest and, therefore, falls within the exception to the exception, namely within the scope of paragraph (6) of Section 190 Cr.C.
Then he went on to say:
At paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18, he explains the underlying reasons for the motion:
He was referring to the Attorney General of Canada at that point. The federal Government stood in court to save the people of Quebec from this dastardly Hockey-Select which was poisoning the minds of the people of that Province; the Government of Canada was the saviour of the conscience of the

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
people of that Province. First the Government said that it wanted:
-to prevent the continuation of the illegal operation of Hockey-Select;
-to stop the public inducement to act illegally;
-not to permit Hockey-Select to continue when the federal Parliament considers amending the Criminal Code in that respect;-
-to underline that it is against public order and morality for anyone, including a mandatary of Her Majesty in the rights of the Province of Quebec, to contravene the provisions of the Criminal Code.
If I have ever heard duplicity, if I have ever heard a federal government speaking out of both sides of its mouth, this is an example. It wanted to save the morals of the people of the Province of Quebec. At the same time it brought before Parliament legislation to create a sports pool, a lottery, a parimutuel, a gambling device on which it would, on the basis of what it said in court in that instance, undermine the morals of the people of Canada. The Government is inducing people to carry on gambling which is illegal for any other institution or for any other person in Canada. Yet the federal Government finds itself in the position now of doing the very thing of which it accused the Province of Quebec in terms of Hockey-Select.
On the basis of the representations I have heard, the people of Canada are now fast realizing the fact that this particular proposition for a gambling pool has no basis of relationship to the Calgary Olympics; it has no validity because of the Calgary Olympics. More and more Canadians are becoming concerned about the moral side of the federal Government involving itself in lotteries, pools or gambling devices which are a tax on people least able to afford it. Gambling is a tax on the poor. It is a tax on people who try with what little money they have to invest in a ticket in order to attain some sort of monetary independence. It is a sad, sad proposition when the federal Government is so unable to manage its affairs that it creates a tax on the poor people of Canada.
Today I received a telegram which I would like to read. It reads:
On May 29th over 500 delegates to Saskatchewan Conference, United Church of Canada, unanimously passed a resolution to urge the Government of Canada to abandon its intention to re-enter the lottery and gambling field in any way including sports pool. Please do all you can to stop Bill C-95.
It was signed by Merv Harrison, Chairman of the National Working Unit on Social Issues and Justice. The United Church of Canada understands what is going on here; the people of Canada understand. I oppose this legislation because it is wrongheaded and deceitful. It is based upon the premise that the poor people of Canada have to support the mismanagement of the Government. The Government of Canada ought to do better, carry out its contractual obligations, stay out of the lottery business and do Canadians a big favour.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss some aspects of Bill C-95, an Act to provide for Government operated sports pools. I am personally opposed to the Bill for many reasons. The area I will be covering at this time will be the wide open use, or perhaps I should say abuse, of the game which the Government is trying to force upon Canadians.
I find it personally disgusting that the Government should try to convince Canadians that this is necessary to support Canadian athletes at the 1988 Winter Olympics together with the facilities by saying that this is the only way it can be financed. That is not true. The Government knows full well that all Provinces have agreed to share in their lottery returns to help finance the Calgary Winter Olympics. Another pool or numbers racket, and that is what it is, is being used so that once again, as one Liberal MP put it, and I will not mention names, "You guys shouldn't oppose this thing because in a year's time you will be able to use it for patronage like we are doing". That is a great line. The Minister gives me a funny look. Let me run down some of the expenses that have already been paid on this lottery and who received the money.
Let us talk about the definition of financing and accounting systems to Howard and Associates, and also a definition of financing and accounting systems of the $3,512 paid to Dr. Martin O'Connell. I understand that Dr. Martin O'Connell was once President of the Liberal Party of Canada, not too long ago.


John Horton McDermid: He received funding shortly after he ceased being a Member of Parliament. Goldfarb Consultants, Research, $16,000; Pugliese Consultants, $875 for research design and review; Howard & Associates, sample ticket design production; G. Kightley & Associates, ticket design and production, $18,300. There are two or three companies doing the same jobs. They are all Liberal companies being paid out of the largesse of a corporation that has not yet been formed.
This just covers from January 1, 1981 to October 6, 1981. Heaven knows what has gone on since then. SOMA Research Ltd., generation of alternative games, research design and review, $22,800. Everybody is designing something and reviewing it. Somebody by the name of P. Woodcox, research-it does not say what research-$3,850. That must have been a heavy study for that kind of money. M. C. Burns & Co., development of gaming projects, $1,250. I do not know Chris Lang, but he got paid $13,995 for liaison with professional sports leagues.
That is an interesting one. That one should be explained. It has not been explained. This individual got paid almost $14,000 for liaison with professional sports leagues. What are they doing, cooking the numbers already? Why we are associating with professional sports leagues? That is where the numbers will come from. What do they have to do with this lottery? Why is there a liaison with them? What exactly is going on over there?
This lottery is nothing but a great big pie in the sky project. It is a porkbarrel for every Liberal hack that can be found from coast to coast in Canada. When this thing is formed, if it gets through the House, and we will make sure that it does not, I will be anxious to see who is appointed as chairman and board of directors of this numbers racket.
This is one lottery that should never come into existence. Competition for the discretionary dollar between the Provinces


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.

June 27, 1983

and the federal Government will once again get completely out of hand. Millions of dollars will be spent advertising against one another's lotteries. Funding will go to the same types of projects where co-operation is now working. Money is coming into the federal coffers for the exact things that this pool or numbers racket is supposed to finance.
1 remember a meeting in 1976 with the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). He pleaded with the Ontario Government to give up its lotteries until the Canadian lottery had enough money to pay off the Olympics. That was to be it. We were never to hear about that lottery again. It would be gone. Once we paid off the Olympics, we would forget about it. It was not to be used for anything else. The Provinces could bring back their lotteries and there would be no competition with one another. That is what the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in 1974 when he was saddled with the debts from the Olympics.
What happens now? The Government comes in with another numbers racket that will take the discretionary dollar from many areas. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist) said that this would damage the very important horse racing industry in this country. It will damage provincial lotteries which at the present time are competing for the discretionary dollar. It will be nothing but a huge Liberal porkbarrel.
The Calgary Olympics is being used in a very unfair way by this Government in order to promote this lottery. The Provinces are now prepared to strike a deal with the federal Government to help finance the very important Olympics that will be held in Canada in 1988. We do not need this so-called sports pool or numbers racket to raise moneys for the Government to hand out to blow itself up in the field of amateur sports. It does not say what amateur sports will be covered. It also states that it will be used for capital projects, but it does not say what capital projects it will cover.
It is interesting to note that after we have been debating this for over an hour, the Minister who is promoting this numbers racket so extensively has finally made an appearance in the Chamber. 1 will close by saying that we oppose this Bill. The evidence presented today is that the porkbarreling has already started. The Liberals are receiving largesse from this numbers racket or sports pool which it is trying to perpetrate on the Canadian people. We are unalterarly opposed to it and will fight it to the end.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-95 at report stage, in particular to Motion No. 2 in the name of my good friend the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid). Before getting into my presentation proper, I want to avail you of some fine remarks made in 1732 by Henry Fielding who said at that time:
A lottery is a taxation,
Upon all the fools in creation;
And Heav'n be prais'd,
It is easily rais'd.
Credulity's always in fashion:
For folly's a fund Will never lose ground.
While fools are so rife in the nation.
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
In the eyes of the Liberal Party, there are many fools in this nation who can be persuaded to give up some of their hard-gotten gains so that hon. gentlemen opposite can spend it as they see fit. My colleague to my left gave some illustrations of how they have spent some of this money already.
The argument over lotteries, both private and state-run, has waxed and waned for hundreds of years. In some research that I performed in the last five minutes, I found that it was in 1826 that the last British state-run lottery was held. At that time a Bill was passed which outlawed state-run lotteries. It heralded an era of Victorian morality. This concept of morality spread across what is now know as the Commonwealth, and also come to Canada at that time.
My personal preference is not to have state-run lotteries. It had been my intention to make the argument in favour of that position on the basis of morality and ethics, but I realized the futility of arguing on the basis of ethics and morality in a House that is dominated by Liberals. If we are to have this type of gambling activity in Canada, and it is not necessary for us to put it all aside, I would prefer that it remain within the private domain rather than be conducted by Governments, whether they be at the federal or provincial level. The main reason for this is that if we are to have gambling, it must be subject to certain strict controls. Whether that gambling be horse racing tracks, dog racing tracks, bingos or any other form of gambling, it is impossible for the Government on the one hand to be the regulator and policeman and make sure that these things are run properly and honestly and on the other hand to be a player in the game. It is almost impossible. We have seen on so many occasions how the Government opposite wants to be the judge, jury, regulator, policeman and, at the same time, the player. We have seen this in the oil and gas industry with Petro-Canada being one of the players in the game when the Government should be content to be the regulator of the oil and gas industry.
If gambling in Canada was to be privately operated, the Government could still raise a revenue from it by means of taxation. It does this already with horse racing. Look, for instance, at the state of Nevada. Nevada receives probably its greatest state revenues from the gaming industry in Las Vegas and other localities. There is no reason why the Government cannot avail itself of some of these revenue-generating opportunities.
In the past, each nation has had its own national form of ganbling. Lotteries have been commonly associated with European and South American countries. In those countries that are without a proper welfare system, the sale of lottery tickets by people who are unable to find other means of employment provide a substitute for the proper welfare payments that are available to us in Canada. In Britain, there were the soccer pools. I presume there are still soccer pools over there.

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
In Canada, our national form of gambling was always the penny stock market. I see that the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) is present, and I am sure that she would agree with me that something very useful came out of this form of gambling or speculation, and in a few moments I would like to discuss the differences between gambling and speculation. Canada created, through the development of mines financed through the issuance of penny stock, a great new wealth. Although, in many cases, the people who bought and sold these stocks did not buy them by way of investment-as far as they were concerned, they were gambling-the end result was the same. Even without dealing with penny mining stocks or penny oil stocks and dealing with other stocks or commodities that are traded in this country and others, the gambler or the speculator increases the liquidity of the market. This therefore provides an underlying economic function that we do not find with the strict gambling that is contemplated under Bill C-95.
Another argument against the lotteries that we already have in Canada and against the sports pools as contemplated in this Bill is that if we look at the figures-and I am afraid that I do not have them with me today-we will see that from the point of view of the gambler who is the person who puts his money up, the return is much better at the craps tables in Las Vegas than it is when buying provincial lottery tickets in Canada or federal lottery tickets when we had them. It seems that the Governments that run these lotteries are much too greedy and are taking off a much larger cut than they should and a much larger cut than would be allowed if the Government were the only regulator and policeman rather than also a player in the game. It seems that the Governments in the country cannot resist the temptation to milk the public for all that it is worth.
I shall say a few words now, Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 2, which, at any rate, is the motion we are supposed to be debating. This amendment would restrict the Government, under Bill C-95, to operating only sports pools. What the Government wants to do in the present Clause 14(b)(i) is give itself blanket authority to undertake any form of gaming or gambling activity that it sees fit. I do not think that we should give the Government that blanket authority. I do not know what it would get itself into. I envisage the possibility of poker machines scattered throughout the confines of the House of Commons.
I see a distinct possibility of the federal Government returning to the lottery schemes that are run by the Provinces, and I do not think that it should want to compete with the Provinces in that type of enterprise, if that is the right word for it. We debated this subject over a period of years, and it was finally determined that lotteries should remain in the provincial domain and that the federal Government should keep out of them. I am frightened by what nefarious scheme the Government might come up with if Parliament were to grant the Government that blanket authority to undertake any form of gambling activity.
We want to restrict the effect of Bill C-95 to sports pools, as bad as they might be. We really do not know what the Government is thinking of when it talks about sports pools. It has not
told us exactly what it has in mind. I understand that it has paid many thousands of dollars to various Liberal consulting firms to dream up schemes that might be incorporated into its gambling practices. So far, it has not been forthcoming with Parliament by telling us really what it is that it wants to do.
If the Government were to adopt a scheme similar to the privately run but Government taxed soccer pools in Great Britain, the potential revenues from the operation of sports pools could be huge. I understand that in that country, many, many millions of dollars are wagered each week on the soccer pools. The Government, by this Bill, restricted as it must be to the operation of sports pools, has the possibility of generating millions of dollars worth of revenue.
In conclusion, Sir, I want to say that I support the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) in his Motion No. 2. We are giving the Government quite enough authority as it is and we cannot let it engage in any of these other nefarious schemes that it might dream up without its returning to Parliament to get more authority.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this legislation. I will address my remarks to the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid).


David P. Smith: The folks in Calgary are listening.


Harvie Andre: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Concil (Mr. Smith) has spoken up about the importance of this legislation to the people of Calgary, Mr. Speaker. Why is it so much a part of the Liberal Government's approach to public policy to use and abuse Alberta, and Calgary in particular, for its partisan purposes? The Calgary Olympic Committee was formed a number of years ago and consists of citizens of Calgary, not Government, who are volunteers. They sought to bring the Winter Olympics to the City and to Canada for the first time. This seems highly appropriate. Without "big brother" providing funds, without the benefit of patronage connection to some Government, with no motive other than to provide this thrilling event for their city, their Province and their country, these citizens work hard. They sought a moral commitment of support for the games from the municipality, the provincial Government and the federal Government should they be fortunate enough to win the right for Canada. They worked for years and put together a superb package which won the approval of the International Olympic Committee.
The citizens of Calgary applauded their efforts and one would hope that the Government of Canada would also applaud their efforts and offer help to make the Olympics the show piece that they should be for Canada. Instead, we see the use of crude, political pressure. These members of the Olympic Committee, these volunteers, are trying to plan facilities and organize the games into something of which Canadians can be proud. Yet the Minister and his minions telephone them
June 27, 1983

saying, "We cannot give you any money unless we get this sports pool Bill through the House, so you had better pressure the Opposition to get it through-pressure them into agreeing to this new gambling scheme. Otherwise you will not get your money."
These volunteers continue to work. They are not out for any patronage benefit. They will not have the rights to sell these tickets and make some money, and they have not signed consulting agreements to pick up the cash that the Government bestows on its friends. They are doing all this for nothing, but they get pressure and threats. They are told, "We do not know if we are going to give you any money. It depends on the House of Commons. We told you before that we would support you and we supported the Olympics in Montreal. We made a commitment but you know we are with commitments-they mean nothing."


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member accept a question with the unanimous permission of the House?


Harvie Andre: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Is the Hon. Member aware that before the Olympics were awarded to Calgary and when these volunteers-these excellent people he mentioned-approached the Government of Canada saying that in Baden-Baden they must show that they had financial support, they were told that it could not be given from taxation dollars but it could be done through a coin program, a stamp program and a sports pool program? That was the understanding with the Government from day one.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that when the members of the Canadian Olympic Committee went to Baden-Baden to make their application, they carried with them a commitment of the Government of Canada to support the application for facilities. The Government is collecting money from the Loto Canada contract and it has given a commitment of support. The mechanism has nothing to do with the question. The Canadian Olympic Committee did not go before the International Olympic Committee and say, "We do not know how much support we are going to get; it depends on our stamp, coin and sports pool sales. We cannot tell how much support the federal Government will give us." They went with a commitment from the Government to support the Canadian Winter Olympics.
No other city in Canada would be so used and abused, Mr. Speaker. No other group of volunteers would be so used and abused the way the Calgary group is. It seems to be a part of the system. Whether we are dealing with the Olympics or anything else, it is acceptable to the Government to use that king of crude pressure. It is especially hard to take when it is talked about in the same breath as national unity and important symbols.
If the Minister is sincere in saying that the interest of the federal Government in the sports pool is solely to help the Calgary Olympics in 1988, then he will agree with Motion No. 2 to strike out Clause 14(6) which extends the legislation far beyond what he just mentioned. It says that the Governor in
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Council can open up any form of lawful gaming activity as a source of revenue for whatever purpose the Government wants. If the Minister is sincere, let him accept the motion, strike out Clause 14(6) and restrict the Bill to the sports pool. If he is sincere, he will accept Motions Nos. 2 and 3 and restrict this to the Winter Olympics. That would prove his sincerity, but I do not think it is likely to happen.
Some of my colleagues have raised the question of the morality of the Government of Canada asking for the right to do what we do not think Canadian citizens have the right to do, namely, to run gambling establishments, run a gaming house, to exploit the human weakness of trying to get rich for nothing and to make money without providing goods or services. It offers the allure of gambling. If we were sincere and honest we would recognize that as a human weakness and not something to be encouraged and exploited by Government any more than other human weaknesses should be exploited for the benefit of Government.
It has been said that the reality of the situation is that taxes on gambling are a tax on the poor, and the data confirms that. There are those who do not have a lot and who hope to achieve their dream through a lottery ticket or a sports pool. Surely it is a sad situation when the Government of Canada sees an opportunity for revenue in this. It is revenue which has a real attractiveness in the political sense because it can be used for patronage purposes by granting the right to sell tickets to our friends by all of these contracts which have been talked about. It is money which, strictly speaking, does not go through the Consolidated Revenue Fund as do other tax dollars. It is money which can be used for really nice political purposes to help "us" get re-elected. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is just plain immoral. The Calgary Olympics will succeed because of the Calgarians who are working on it, managing it and putting it together. It will succeed. It will be an outstanding success in spite of this Minister's attempt to undermine the confidence and the support which this group requires.


Gerald Augustine Regan: That is rather unkind.


Harvie Andre: The Minister says that that is unkind. If he would say right now that he stakes his reputation as a Minister and guarantees the Olympic Committee the support which was promised to it when it went to Baden-Baden, if he will do that, then I will withdraw my statement entirely? If he will do that simple thing, say that he as the Minister responsible guarantees that the Government of Canada will live up to its commitments, that is all that is necessary. If the Government guarantees it will live up to its commitments, then I will withdraw my remarks entirely. I do not believe that that is likely to happen, Mr. Speaker, because it has not happened so far with this bunch. Perhaps they will turn over a new leaf, but I am not expecting it.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, when I looked at this legislation I tried to see if there was

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
anything good in it, anything which I could accept, or anything which made any sense at all. Regretfully, I could find absolutely nothing in this legislation except that it made me feel somewhat embarrassed that this country could have such a Government which would deliberately, maliciously and viciously go in for living off the poor and living off gambling.
At the moment, Ontario residents are the biggest lottery spenders per capita in Canada, the fourth largest in North America. They spend an average now of $63.95 per person a year on lotteries. That is more than double the amount for the rest of Canada where the average spending is somewhere about $30 per person. I am even wondering if in my own Province of British Columbia, people understand that there is between $70 million and $80 million a year which flows through lotteries. I am not against an individual who wants to make a bet with the guy at the next desk over the hockey game on a particular evening. That is a simple transaction between two consenting adults. Neither one of them is going to be hurt. However, when you institutionalize the sports pool, and you ask people to select the winners of ten games-and that is really what a sports pool is, similar to the English pools-that is not what I would see as showing the ability of someone to select who is going to win and who is going to lose because they are experts in a particular sport. If you multiply the permutations which are involved in picking 10 or 12 games, you are buying a lottery ticket and that is all you are buying. It is just another lottery, regardless of what it is called.
We now have this nonsense about support of the Calgary Olympics. You can always trust the Liberals to find a red herring somewhere, or somewhere to trans-affect what is really taking place. From what I can gather, this Government could not care less about the Calgary Olympics, but it is a nice excuse to hang this fraud upon the Canadian people. "The Calgary Olympics do not get the money unless we get our sports pool", is what is implied. That is supposed to make those of us from western Canada very careful of what we say about this rather unfortunate legislation. We are supposed to lie down and pretend that, by golly, Calgary has to have support and this is the only way to get it. The Government of Canada must support the Olympic Games. I believe it is true in Ontario, and I believe even in Quebec the Liberals will find that Canadians want the Calgary Olympics fully supported by their national Government.
Let me give a little history now, and I suppose a bit of "mea culpa". I can remember in the early 1960s when a little lady by the name of Mary English in the City of Calgary became very excited about Canada's lottery laws. She found some support, raised some money, made a pilgrimage to Ottawa, appeared on radio stations, and gave interviews right across this country. I do not know where you are now, Mary, but I know this much, that I am sorry I supported you. I did not realize what was going to happen if her campaign succeeded, which it did, quite frankly. It changed the thinking of Canadian people about lotteries. So that today we have a situation where we now have super loto. It costs $10 per ticket. That is not what Mary English had in mind. Ten dollars is a lot of money. A few $10 bills put together buys an awful lot of things. When you multiply it by hundreds and hundreds, it is a
significant portion of Canada's national product. For the winners there is $1 million. However, the odds are about
800,000	to one. The provincial lottery is $5 per ticket. The top prize is $500,000. Again, the chances are 800,000 to one. Wintario-there is something for everyone in the lottery field-is $1 per ticket. Top prize is $100,000. The odds are a million to one. Lottario costs $1 per ticket. The odds-you should not buy "Lottario"-are 3.2 million to one. Cash for life costs $2 per ticket. The top prize is $50,000 per year for life. The odds are 1.4 million to one. The Pot of Gold costs $2 per ticket. The top prize is $100,000. The odds are one million to one. Then there is Loto 649. If that is not close to what we are proposing with the sports pool, then I do not know what is. It costs $1 per ticket. The top prize is $1 million. The odds are, believe it or not, 13,983,806 to one. What do you suppose the odds are going to be on anyone actually cashing a sports pool ticket? The odds are going to be astronomical because it is a numbers game. Picking that many games is almost an impossibility.
What really has disturbed me about this legislation is the lack of protest in the country. I have always believed that people get the Governments they deserve, with perhaps the exception of the Canadian people in the last three years. Where has the massive protest from the recreational industry of Canada been? Do they not realize that when people are buying these ruddy tickets, those dollars are going into something where there is no real output in terms that make sense for their industry? There have been some protests from the churches. Reverend Much more, where are you when we really need you badly? We certainly can use you on this rediculous legislation which is being proposed. Where is the massive protest? Some have protested, but not nearly as many as should.
Where is the moral indignation of the Canadian people at a Government which will foist this on them? I believe part of the answer is that there is no doubt that this particular bit of legislation is likely to be "steamrollered" through. This Government is going to force this upon us whether we like it or not. That is rather unfortunate because I think that if its Members listened to some of the speeches here, as I have this afternoon, and some of the other speeches which are going to be made, it would find that a good many of them make a good deal of sense in terms of modifying this Bill or finding reasons why this legislation should not be passed. Unfortunately, the problem with the Government is that once it does something, it is like a brick wall and you can never get it to change. Even if it thought it was wrong, it would not admit it. That is what bugs me about this legislation-it is wrong. It is wrong for the Canadian people. It is not as if Canadians did not have access to a lottery ticket, a home grown lottery ticket, if you like. They do now, in several areas, and at tremendous odds. For those persons who want a lottery ticket, fine, they can buy one. But to foist this one additional sport pool lottery on top of anything else and, I might add, to change the law in such a
June 27, 1983

way that it totally opens the door for other Ministers to play with this thing, to expand gambling in Canada in a variety of ways, doing it by Order-in-Council without ever having to come to the House again or to ever have it publicly debated properly in the House of Commons is, to me, the most dangerous feature about this particular legislation and the proposed changes to the Code.
1 will be voting against it, of course. I will be voting against the Government all the way on this one, and talking about it in years to come. I would also warn the Minister that his projections may be wrong. It just may be that the Canadian people have become satiated with get rich quick schemes where the odds are a million to one. If that happens, then what he has done has been to waste the Canadian people's money in setting it up, in paying off patronage to all kinds of people.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Oh, no, no.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Oh, no, he has not wasted the money. All one must do is look at the list. It is a Liberal boondoggle. It is wrong. It is bad. The people of Canada should rise up in righteous indignation and say to the Government, "Do not do this dastardly deed, because you should not". The Government ought to be ashamed of itself for even suggesting such an immoral, impossible, improper thing to the Canadian people. I find myself embarrassed to have to debate such a moral issue in the House of Commons, particularly when it involves something that is so useless and unnecessary in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. In the ordinary course of events, the Chair would now recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shushwap (Mr. Riis). However, I have been indirectly informed that the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) may have some pressing obligations. I leave it to the two Hon. Members to indicate to the Chair in which order they wish to proceed.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member. In principle, I do not believe in gambling. Anyone who has been in the army, for instance, has seen it take place excessively. Anyone who has worked in the woods camp knows that for an orderly, peaceful woods operation one does not play poker. Anyone who has been associated with the Legion in this country after World War II knows that. An attempt was made after the war to extend to members of the Legion the opportunity to continue some of their former habits, one of which was gambling. Anyone who has been associated with a branch of the Legion is aware of the fact that in virutally every instance, the gambling opportunity had to be removed. Everyone knows that service clubs have tried on several occasions to raise some of their funds for their requirements with slot machines. They have found that in the main their members went broke. While the club became rich, the members went broke; some of them, not all of them, because not all people are compulsive gamblers.
The Bill, therefore, is absolutely contradictory to the principles which would support a moral operation of the Olympic
Athletic Contests and Events Pooh Act
games in Canada. That is the first point. My principles tell me that this is a dead wrong and immoral act by the Government of Canada to try to exploit the gambling instincts of the people of Canada to fulfil an international obligation as well as a local obligation in Canada. Let us deal with the international obligation.
There are nations which are involved in a treaty type of agreement with respect to the conduct of Olympic games in this world. Any application received from any country in the world is accompanied by a recommendation from the responsible Government and, in the case of the federal Government of Canada, an indication that there will be fiscal responsibility. Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, and without that inherent guarantee and the recommendation of the Government concerned no Olympic game would be extended to any country.
There was another little hassle over a very comparable measure in the House before the present Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) became a Member of the House of Commons. In the consultations and considerations with respect to the financing of the Olympic games in Montreal it was made very clear to the committee that the favourable recommendation of the Government of Canada for the Summer Olympics in Montreal certainly included a guarantee of fiscal capability. That guarantee was given by the Government of Canada.
The Minister may shake his head but I ask him, before he opens his mouth after shaking his head, to explore the standards by which the International Olympic Committee will extend the privilege of conducting games in any country in the world. The national Government's recommendation and support are inherent to the guarantee of fiscal responsibility.
Therefore, it is not playing perfectly honestly with the people of Canada, at best, to say, "Oh, the Government of Canada must have this Bill through by June 30". It is quite improper to say that; it is deceptive. That approach to the Olympic Committee of Calgary, to the Olympic Committee of Canada and to the athletes of Canada is absolutely and utterly ignoring the absolute guarantee of financial responsibility which was included in and interpreted as such a guarantee when the Government's support for the application went before the international committee that allocated the games. That is the first point.
Second, for any Minister of the Government of Canada to say to any local committee that it shall be financed for the sponsoring of these games in a particular way and only in a particular way is (a) a threat to the sponsors of Calgary and (b) a breach of the international obligation which this nation look on.
I want to say to Your Honour that anyone in this nation who thinks there is anything but a threat to the Olympic athletes, the Olympic Committee and the city of Calgary had better become familiarized with the terms and conditions, on an international basis, under which the Government became responsible.

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
I do not like deceptive methods. Yes, the Minister responsible for sports did, in fact, dissolve one loto set up by the Government of Canada. This was in fact returned to the authority to which it belonged, namely, the Provinces. When there is a mere $90 billion budget in the nation, to say to the people of Canada that we must have a loto and exploit the gamblers of Canada to finance the athletic games which will be conducted in 1988 is deception at a disgustingly low level.
I do not favour lotteries in a public sence because of the exploitation of the compulsive gambler to the detriment of his family's well being. After all the lessons learned about the impact upon the family welfare of the compulsive gambler, for the Government of Canada to be bringing in this kind of legislation is contempt of its moral responsibility.
There was an offer made to the Government. Why did it not take it up? Why did the Government not take up the voluntary offer of the provincially conducted lotteries in this nation to conduct a special program to finance the Calgary deal? Why does the Government want to get into every aspect of gambling available to mankind by the permissive legislation it is trying to get us to pass and which we are trying to amend? I hope this nation understands the outright deceit the Government is placing before athletes in Calgary and this nation as it tries to boondoggle the House into the necessity of passing this legislation; it told Calgary that it can only give it what it can get from a lottery. That is simply horseradish.
It is most difficult to understand what has happened to all those voluntary groups in the country which used to put baseball, hockey and other athletic teams together as a community effort. People were prepared to put money forward in their community to support those endeavours. Ever since the initial introduction of lotteries in Canada, those same organizations ask how much they can get from the Government whether provincial or federal. Why should they raise money? Why should there be an interest in the community any longer to try to field these teams which contribute so much to the communities? Why should they build a tennis court or a rink? Lotteries have had a very derogatory effect upon the initiative in communities of Canada since Government moneys have been allocated on a political basis from a gambling organization to support this type of event.
In principle, I denounce this Bill, and I doubly denounce the deceptive way it is being presented to Canadians. I feel sorry for misled Calgarians who believe they will only have the Olympic Games if there is a lottery. That is a downright disgraceful and deceitful proposition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity today to speak against this particular Bill. Normally, I would relish the thought of making comments on a Government or an Opposition Bill, but I find this Bill particularly distasteful for a number of reasons. One is the link which has been made between this Bill and the Calgary Olympics. I want to say here and now that I and my Party obviously support the Olympics being held in one of our
finest cities in western Canada. I am sure that all Members of the House are proud of Canada's athletes and the fact that we will host this competition, inviting athletes from around the world. We wish them the greatest success. We also support fitness and sports in general. We support the concept of fitness, recreation and other leisure activities.
However, the Government has given the impression that those who speak against this Bill also speak against the idea of the Olympics and fitness and health in general. That is absolutely false. As Opposition Members, we are trying to say in the House today that we are in favour of those activities but opposed to this Bill.
This Bill proposes to provide money for activities such as the Calgary Olympics, arts and culture in Canada, fitness and amateur sports, medical and health research and worthy capital projects. These	are all	projects	which I believe allMembers of the House	strongly	support.	They are all	worthy
of the appropriate support from the federal Government, along with other levels of Government.
However, we feel very strongly that these worthwhile endeavours should not be funded on the backs of Canada's poor. If these are legitimate activities-there is no question that they are-they should be funded from general revenues, so that those who are able to pay, do so. The taxes and moneys for these worth while	endeavours can	be collected	in anequitable fashion from	our tax	system;	the myth of	course
being that our tax system is equitable and fair, and that is an entirely different matter, but at least it is the basis upon which we have a so-called progressive tax system in our country. If these are worthwhile endeavours, let us fund them properly from the general tax base in Canada and not by a gambling cassino approach to health, fitness, amateur sports, culture and arts and the Olympics.
This Bill institutionalizes gambling in this country. It sets up a gambling business on a permanent basis, endorsed by the federal Governemnt of Canada. Imagine the message being sent to Canadians from all walks of like and all regions at a time when they are desperately looking to the federal Government for leadership and direction. These are confusing and difficult times at best. The people of this country are looking to their national and regional leaders for advice. What advice is the Government of Canada giving to Canadians? It is telling them to gamble. It believes the answer to funding some of the most worthwhile endeavours in our country is to set up a gambling cassino so that all Canadians can gamble. That is the message being conveyed by the Government.
I am one of those Members of the House of Commons who does not believe that people should gamble as a way out of an economic dilemma. Gambling is not the answer to obtaining the necessary cash flow for individuals, their families or communities. I suggest the Government is providing poor leadership when it encourages people to pull $5, $20, or $100 bills from their pockets to participate in this federal Government gambling business. What sort of message does a Bill like this send to the people of Canada?
June 27, 1983

If we believe in amateur sports and fitness, in arts and culture, medical and health research, is it not time we began spending money collected from legitimate sources, using legitimate methods, as opposed to asking people to get rich quick by gambling? Perhaps that is good Liberal advice because it falls in with Liberal economic planning. I have always considered the Liberal approach to economic planning as being the Las Vegas school of economics; go out and gamble on the longshot. Of course, the longshot for the Liberal Government was called the megaprojects in western Canada or, more precisely, the energy projects. That was the Liberals' gamble. If the card they played had been the right one at the right time they would be laughing. The funds would be rolling in and all of the programs, the porkbarrelling and patronage would be flowing in all directions and they would be well off electorally as well as economically. However, the gamble did not pay off. All the eggs in that one basket called the megaprojects in western Canada failed because the right card did not come out.
The Liberal Government is now asking Canadians to use that same mentality. It is telling the average citizen of Canada who is struggling to make ends meet, the average small-business person, the farmers, the ranchers and fishermen of Canada who are struggling to establish their families' cash flow, to follow the Government's great idea to buy these tickets and spend their hard earned money because they might strike it rich. It says that they should not feel badly if they do not strike it rich because the money they invest will be used to pay for such things as medical research and the development of arts and culture in Canada.
This Bill is almost laughable. It is a sad comment when we see Ministers standing up during these tragic economic times to say that this is the answer to funding these worth while endeavours. Their answer is to turn Canadians into gamblers and Canada into one large Las Vegas. We in the NDP believe this is exactly the wrong approach. This is not the right step. This is a program that has not been thought through carefully. If it is a well thought out program 1 should like to hear Members opposite stand up and condone gambling; say that gambling is the best interests of the country, that gambling is in the best interests of our economy and in the best interests of arts, culture, amateur sport and fitness and so on.
In closing, let me say with disgust that this kind of approach to economic development, to the funding of the arts, sciences, sports and fitness is a sad proposal put forward by the Government of Canada; it is a sad proposal. The only thing I can say is that as Opposition Members we will be doing what we can to voice our opposition, and to try to bring the Government to some sense. There are much better ways to fund these worthwhile ventures, such as the Calgary Olympics, than turning the nation into one national set of Las Vegas players.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Before I begin the
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
remarks I wish to deliver in the short time allotted to me, I want to say that we have had from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) a prime example of the kind of government the NDP would envisage for the country; a Government that would decree what the people should or should not do, not the other way around, the Government being the servant of the people.
1 would like to suggest to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap that lotteries have existed for a long time in some form or another in every community across this country. There are turkey raffles, car raffles, and car bingos. These are all a form of lottery. It is quite accepted that this is the way money is raised in communities to build parks, swimming pools and other things. As a former Kinsman and a former Rotarian, we did a number of these things for the good of the community. People knew what they were doing. People recognized the odds against them when they bought those lottery tickets.
The Hon. Member, like the rest of the NDP, says "no, that is wrong. Even though you want to do it you cannot do it because we know best. We will dictate to you and we will lay it out because it is morally wrong", or whatever. I do not take exception to the lottery system if that is what the people want. People have always bought lottery tickets. They buy tickets when a car is raffled, when a cake is raffled, when coins are raffled, or whatever. It is done in virtually every community of our nation. That is fine if that is what the people want to do, I believe in freedom for those people to do that.
I take considerable exception to this Government bringing in Bill C-95 at this time. It is sleazy, underhanded and wrong; not because it is another lottery but because an agreement was signed with the Provinces stating on behalf of the federal Government, "We will not enter into the lottery system." This Government took it to the courts for a legal opinion. That legal opinion received by the Minister was that the federal Government could not go into lotteries because that process had been signed away to the Provinces.
Let us look at what the Government is doing. From 1979 the federal Government was to get $24 million a year for doing absolutely nothing but leaving the jurisdiction of the lottery system and lottery games in the hands and the purview of the Provinces. This $24 million a year the Government got for doing absolutely nothing was tied to the Consumer Price Index. This year it looks like the federal Government will receive $32 million in revenue. Since the agreement was signed the federal Government has received close to $100 million for doing absolutely nothing except allowing the Provinces to control the lotteries.
The provinces are better able to protect against abuse, and better able to run the lottery system. But the federal Government has seen the potential revenue it might receive. The federal Governments now uses the argument that it takes skill to pick certain winners and therefore this system is no longer a lottery. The Government saw the possible loophole in relation to sports pools. The federal Government knew full well that the then Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Multiculturalism in the Conservative Government signed an agreement with the Provinces that was legally binding.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It was not his fault.


Jack Wendele Shields: It was binding enough to make the breach of that agreement a very serious matter. But what does the present Minister for amateur sport do? In a very sleazy way he finds a loophole and says "We are going to have a sports pool because it takes skill to pick all the winners in a professional sport. Therefore the loophole exists, and we will start a sports pool." But, Mr. Speaker, this is a lottery, it is not just a sports pool.
The Minister then ties this to the Calgary Olympics and says there will be no money for the Winter Olympics in 1988 unless we have legislation passed. Yet we are looking at probably $30 million a year over the next four years, far in excess of the amount needed in Calgary, particularly when you consider the coin and the stamp program the Minister mentioned.
The federal Government with its great ability in the use of the advertising media has become the largest advertiser in Canada of any single corporation. The federal Government can hide an advertising blitz in any department it wants. As a result, this lottery pool will be detrimental to the present lottery programs running in western Canada, Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes. This Bill is wrong on those grounds.
Once again, we have a federal Liberal Government that signed an agreement not honouring that agreement, but working around it. We have seen agreement after agreement the federal Government has worked out with the Provinces put aside when the federal Government does not like the way the Provinces are handling a program, or sees something it is missing out on. The federal Government says "No, we are going to pull away from that agreement." We saw this in respect of resources in some of the Provinces. We see the same Government breaking its word in exactly the same way.
If we allow this legislation to go through for sports pools under federal jurisdiction we will again see abuse, because this legislation will not be subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor General. We are creating another Crown corporation. The federal Government has told us we will have to put up $20 million front money to get this sports pool going in the first year of operation. The federal Government will then distribute these so-called sports pools systems across the nation through 135 wholesalers. Those 135 wholesalers will be good Liberal Party hacks who will receive $ 150,000 to $250,000 a year just because they are wholesalers and because they have been given the smile by the Minister. The Government will provide Party supporters with opportunities to make money out of these sports pools. There will be no auditor to control them or to see who is blessed with selling the tickets which the Government will advertise right across the country. There will be another
6,000	kiosks for people to earn $30,000 or $40,000 per year from the proceeds of sports pools. This is a great big political porkbarrel. Again it will be a Crown corporation totally outside the purview of the House of Commons and not
accountable to the Auditor General. This is not the time for the federal Government with the deficit as high as it is to establish another Crown corporation. We all know that the Liberals are running low in the polls and have to do something to get their fortunes back into line. Perhaps 6,000 or 7,000 good Liberal supporters in ridings across the country will be of benefit. I think that is wrong.
As I have indicated, the federal Government receives $30 million per year, tied to the Consumer Price Index, for doing absolutely nothing. It receives that from the Provinces which run and control sports pools. It is received because of an agreement signed that allowed Provinces to run pools within their jurisdictions so that people would know where the funds were going. They have set up pools which are totally accountable to the federal Government. But according to this piece of legislation the sports pool Crown corporation will not be accountable to the Auditor General. Again I say that is wrong. If the federal Government is sponsoring it the federal Government is responsible, and it should be responsible to the House of Commons. It is wrong on those bases.
The amendment with which we are dealing right now would delete the following:
-to conduct and manage, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council, such lawful gaming activities as the Governor in Council directs.
This makes it wide open for the Government to do absolutely anything, to steamroll over the Provinces once again, contrary to the agreement signed by my hon. colleague, the former Minister of amateur sports.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some trepidation to speak on Bill C-95. Perhaps I could first make a remark about the reformed rules of the House. I trust by the end of the year we will have looked very hard at the idea of sitting here from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night. I know this has nothing to do with the Bill before the House; it is simply a bind in which we all seem to be when we are foolish enough to sentence ourselves to these hours for the month of June.
This Bill authorizes gambling. It authorizes any type or description of gambling which in future years suits the Cabinet. There are many people who should never gamble. Unfortunately most gamblers come from poorer sections of the community. They can least afford it but seem most addicted to it. When I was a youngster my very first experience with gambling was when I attended the Yorkton Fair in Saskatchewan. I was a kid off the farm. My Dad gave me a dollar for the whole day to spend on rides, for admission into the exhibition grounds, the grandstand and everything. He gave it to me at 8.30 in the morning and I was back home at 9.00, an hour later. I had found one of those wheels which went tick, tick, tick; the lights flashed and I lost my dollar. My Dad said, "a fool and his money are soon parted". His name was Peter MacDonald McKinnon; he did not part with dollars lightly.
June 27, 1983

There are what used to be called gentlemanly forms of gambling. For example, a person could play bridge with people of equal talent. If he was not of equal talent, it would dawn on him sooner or later and he could withdraw. But the type of gambling which the Government is now encouraging is addictive. People tend to get into debt over it.
We saw an example of a female accountant in a firm in Toronto the other day who had managed to get away with a couple of hundred thousand dollars. When asked what she had done with it she said she had spent it on lottery tickets because she was convinced she would win some day. As I have travelled the world I have noticed that there is a connection between the moral fibre of a country, the prosperity of a country and the amount of lottery tickets which are sold. I have travelled through western European countries, Britain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Mexico, United States and Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And what about Britain?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I believe there is a pretty close connection between poverty and government authorized or approved gambling. I hear the Minister asking me about Britain. He might well have noticed that the pool is a favourite method of gambling there. For a long time pools were conducted with a small limit. One did not bet ten pounds per week on the pools; one bet ten pence. Even so, in the poorer parts of the country more people were selling pool tickets and gambling on contrived methods. Pools are not entirely gambling. There is a certain amount of knowledge and at those levels there is very little in the way of broken homes or people spending their grocery money. But the situation is different here with a type of gambling where everyone is asked to operate as if it were a numbers game. For most people who purchase tickets it will be a numbers game.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is exactly like the British pools.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Generally the people who play the British pools are very skilled at estimating soccer scores. If the Minister is to obtain the amount of money he hopes for, he has to appeal to people who do not have any more notion on what they are betting than when they buy lottery tickets and watch the bit on television with coloured balls to discover the winners. This is a form of regressive taxation of the worst kind, and there can be no doubt about it. The term "regressive" used in this sense means a taxation which hits hardest those people who can least afford it. I suspect if the Minister conducted a pool among people in the House, for instance, he would find there is very little purchasing of tickets, because most of us are not poor and have enough wits to realize what a bad investment it would be to purchase a lottery ticket hoping to win any money.
Since I lost that first dollar I must admit that I have gambled a fair amount, but usually 1 had a better chance of winning than 1 would have here. A person can always cover his gambling urges by saying that he is investing in the country or in resource industries. I have done my share of that. Sometimes he wins; sometimes he buys Dome Petroleum thinking
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
that it might pay off. If anyone here wishes to buy shares of Dome Petroleum I have quite a few I would be willing to sell at cost. The losers, though, will be the Canadian people and the winner will be the Canadian government. But with its usual way of doing things, I suspect the Government will turn a winner into a loser. Recently someone said that if we gave the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) the Sahara Desert, in six months they would have to import sand. That is the kind of skill they have in these natural things. 1 recall a former Minister, Iona Campagnola, who was in early on the lottery fiasco. She managed to sign a contract before she brought it to the House and got into all kinds of trouble. I suppose that showed some kind of Party loyalty, for now she is the President of the Liberal Party. Those things could only happen in the Liberal Party.
I would like to turn to the amendment that is being considered at the moment. Let me point out one of the clauses in this boondoggle which will become a statute. It reads:
One of the directors appointed ... shall be designated by the Governor in Council as Chairman and the Board shall select the Vice-Chairman from among the other such directors.
This leaves it up to the Government to appoint these people. We know from previous experience what kind of people they appoint to Government boards. As usual, they will be high-salaried and incompetent. What I worry about, and the amendment speaks of it, is the types of gaming that will be carried on. It appears to me that anything at all will be allowed.
Let us look at one of the Government's recent investments in a public corporation, Petro-Canada. Once this Bill is passed, I expect that the Government will be able to allow a poker game to take place in the back room of every PetroCanada station in this country. There will be a civil servant there taking what is commonly called the "rake-off'. With most gambling, the size of the rake-off dictates whether a person should get into it or not. The rake-off on some of these games will be large indeed because this Bill permits it.
The disbursements have a peculiar tinge to them. I notice in the Bill that some of these disbursements are for good causes. However, others are a little odd. On page 8 of the Bill it states:
There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to or for the support of any one or more of
(a) activities in the following fields:
(i)	the arts and culture,
(ii)	fitness and amateur sport, and
(iii)	medical and health research.
This reference to medical and health research is interesting. It could entail a great deal of money if the Government is going to seriously approach funding for health research. However, it further states in paragraph (c)
-worthy capital projects of national interest in the fields described in Subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii).

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
That refers to arts and culture and fitness and amateur sport, but not medical and health research. One becomes curious as to how they will become selective as they go through this process. In one paragraph certain things will be funded and in the next paragraph the funding will be cancelled. Clause 21 reads:
The accounts and financial transactions of the Corporation shall be audited each year by an auditor appointed by the Governor in Council for a term not exceeding three years.
I certainly do not agree with that. We on this side are convinced the Auditor General and not Cabinet-appointed auditors, should audit Crown corporations.
Clause 14 is the one that the amendment speaks to. I quote paragraph (d):
The objects of the Corporation are-
(b) to conduct and manage, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council, such lawful gaming activities as the Governor in Council directs.
As I said before, that is a kind of open sesame to all kinds of gambling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will be back to deal with other clauses of the Bill later.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us deletes Clause 14(l)(b) which reads:
-to conduct and manage, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council, such lawful gaming activities as the Governor in Council directs.
This Bill is not about a sports pool. Is it about the Government making lawful such gaming activities as it decides are proper. Aside from the question of lotteries, pools, Olympics and sports, this is an authority by the Governor in Council, the Cabinet, to authorize all sorts of gambling activities, activities not even yet devised. On that basis alone, this Bill should fail.
I am glad the Minister is in the chamber. I want him to hear what happened to a relative of mine who was working for a major trust company in Ontario. She decided to dip into the till and falsify the records of that trust company to buy Lottario tickets and tickets on Olympic lotteries at one time run by this Government. She was very clever at it. She managed to get into that trust company to the extent of $45,000 before an audit revealed what had happened. As a result of arrangements, she did not go to jail; nor was she prosecuted. Something was done to look after her, but that did not stop her. She again got a job of trust and was able to get into her next employer to the extent of some $17,000. She felt that if the Government was going to run a lottery system, it must be good and it must be a fair system. Therefore, she could get back all the things she had taken from people and replace her losses by one of those winnings. She was going to be the one in a million winner. She was going to be independently wealthy. She was going to have the hopes and dreams that she had wanted simply because the Government was promising them to her in television ad campaigns.
An article appeared in The Globe and Mail with respect to gambling. I want to read into the record a statement made by Dr. Robert Politzer, Director of the Johns Hopkins University,
Pathological Gambling Counselling sector at Mount Wilson near Baltimore. He said and I quote:
Not his family, not his job, nothing. He becomes driven to the point of breaking laws to get the money he needs to gamble. Gambling, not the winning or losing of money, becomes an end to itself.
In the practice of law I had the opportunity to handle a great number of clients in business. One was a young man who came from Yugoslavia. He had built up a very successful contracting business. When I first got to know him he owned several small appartment buildings that he had built. He managed to put together a door company in Mississauga which made fire-resistant doors. He had several pieces of attractive land on which he was speculating.
This man was on his way to becoming a millionaire, if he was not already there. Then he found out about the ponies and about gambling. He was one of those, roughly one in one hundred, persons in our society who is compulsive in gambling. He went bankrupt. His marriage went bankrupt and his family went bankrupt.
To have a Government of this country come before this House and say in the interest of sports, the Olympics, culture of all things, it is going to trade on the disease, the compulsiveness of some of its citizens who will wind up with destroyed families, who will wind up taking advantage as my relative did of the promise by a Government to make them wealthy, is wrong and must be opposed by every right-thinking person in this House. This Bill must appal the very basic conscience of every Member of the House on the basis of individual knowledge. It does not take very much experience living in a society like ours to know that there are members of society who do not buy one ticket but buy ten tickets or 20 tickets, who buy tickets with money that is not their own, who dip into the till. One does not have to be a criminal lawyer to defend that type of person because that type of person can be a member of one's own family.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when this Minister brings forth this kind of a Bill, he ought to be ashamed of himself. This Government has an obligation to finance Olympic activities on behalf of us all. That money can come from various sources of Government revenue, from income tax to corporate tax to duties and customs. But surely the Government ought not to trade on the incapacity of some people to resist games of chance. To present a Bill that deliberately allows the Cabinet to authorize other forms of gambling behind this corporation must repel us all. It must be the kind of thing that a Government interested in criminal law, morality and the right thing would tear up in disgust. Yet the Minister says: "Oh, well, you must have it. If you want to finance these things, we must have a slush fund." Well, I say to him that if his need for a slush fund is that great, the Government is all slush and no principle. It will be defeated, if not on this Bill, then by the general public of the country in an election.
June 27, 1983


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in joining my colleagues in opposing Bill C-95, I find that there are a number of provisions in the Bill which, from a practical and moral standpoint, have not been addressed by the Government in committee. The proposals now before the House are not acceptable.
The two major practical objections to the Bill are the unsound economics of the proposed Bill and the inclusion of Clause 14(b) which we are now discussing, and which will be seriously detrimental to the setting up of the sports pool. Let me refer for a moment to the economic unsoundness of the Bill.
The Hon. Reuben Baetz, Minister of Tourism and Recreation for Ontario, appeared before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture on December 16, 1982. As a shareholder of the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation and as their Chairman for the last four years, he is well informed about the mechanics of running a lottery. As one who had a part in setting up the first Manitoba Lottery when I was Executive Director of the Manitoba Centennial Corporation, I was particularly interested in his comments and the overview he brought to the committee. At one point, he stated categorically:
I am here today to tell you that the federal Government sports pool cannot generate the levels of profit that have been suggested by the federal Government.
The reasons for the sports pool's undoubted failure have been well presented by my colleagues previously in this debate.
[ Translation]
We know that sports pools represent a very small percentage of the market. For instance, if we look at the Province of Quebec and its Hockey Select lottery, we find that the percentage of ticket sales for hockey sports pools has been decreasing regularly.

Not only is there the drop suggested in expected revenue. We have been told that the sports pool will collect $30 million to $40 million a year. Mr. Baetz, when appearing before committee, suggested that this amount will not be enough to even cover the cost of the equipment needed to run the game. We have a $10.5 million start-up grant that is not even expected to be recovered and, as we were told in Committee, an estimated $20 million that will be borrowed. That makes $30.5 million. The moneys generated would not come anywhere near covering the $200 million the Government has promised Calgary for the Olympics.
Second, the motion proposed by the Official Opposition would strike Clause 14(b). This Clause is unnecessary to the running of the sports pools and is potentially harmful to our relations with the Provinces. It gives the federal Government the authority to conduct and manage, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council, such lawful gaming activities as the Governor in Council directs. What does this mean, Mr. Speaker? We are told that it is not the Government's intention to get back into the lottery business. If
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
not, what other kinds of lawful gaming activities will we see- video games, national bingo games, Trivial Pursuit on national television?
The Provinces, very rightly, I believe, mistrust this Clause. If it is not removed, the Provinces will be very unco-operative in establishing this sports pool. As officials of the Provinces have said again and again, they do not like the idea of negotiating with a gun to their heads. They feel it threatens the agreement made between the federal and provincial Governments in August of 1979 whereby the Provinces have paid to the Government about $34 million a year in exchange for having the federal Government withdraw from the lottery business. Clause 14(b), the Mack truck Clause, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), so aptly puts it, seriously jeopardizes the spirit of mutual trust that is so essential for future negotiations.
Let me then look at the practical applications of the Bill and summarize three other objections I have in the practical sphere. First, as my colleague pointed out a few moments ago, there is the possibility of political patronage. A second objection is that it is relatively easy to fix a sports game as compared to other forms of lotteries. Therefore, the Government is taking a risk entering into this area. Third, the beneficiary structure is too large and too vague. We have no clear advance idea of how the Calgary Olympics will benefit as opposed to fitness and amateur sports, health and medical research, arts and culture, to say nothing of the specification of worthy capital projects.
I would like to make some comments in relation to the objections I have on moral grounds. I do so in relation to my own convictions and also in relation to my responsibility as Opposition critic of the Minister of the Secretary of State, a ministry directed to encouraging wholesome citizenship. I see nothing in the Government's decision to go hand in hand with the promotion of lotteries that will encourage a healthly sense of citizenship in Canada.
I, along with other Members, today received a representation made by the Reverend Robert G. Lindsey, Senior Staff Officer of Church in Society for the United Church of Canada. The representation he makes to Canadians and to the House of Commons is as follows:
This is the time to stop further Government promotion of gambling in Canada. The United Church of Canada is concerned with the Government's refusal to understand its obligation to support morality in Canada rather than to undermine it. We hope that you will do whatever is in your power to stop Bill C-195 from becoming law in Canada.
I received a similar representation dated June 24 from Rev. A. G. Van Eek of the Council of Christian Reformed Churches in Canada. He outlines the concern of that constituency about lotteries which raise or capitalize upon false hopes and that worthy projects are somehow put in jeopardy. He also suggests that they take up the disposable income of low-income earners, and for these reasons and others he suggests that it is not in the interests of Canada to continue.

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
I believe that lotteries are an undue celebration of chance. Others who have spoken before the committee who are not in any way prudish and who do not wish to remove fun and opportunity for Canadians see this as undercutting an important fabric.
Prof. McCormack Smyth of York University says:
Liberal democratic government has been based on a number of central ideas. One is that government must respect human beings. Governments must not exploit human weaknesses. Through their promotion of lotteries, governments are appealing to one of the lowest human qualities, that of greed. Lotteries promote, albeit unconsciously, the view that it is in order for individuals to be their brother's taker.
Because someone is willing to be taken is no excuse for exploiting that person. Public support for an idea does not make it right, as was demonstrated by child labour, slavery and racial discrimination. 1 think that gambling is proportionately more harmful to poor people than it is to people in high-income brackets. The net effect of lotteries and their acceleration is to warp public direction. I therefore join with my colleagues in opposing this legislation which is in conflict with other areas of Government direction.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to make a few comments in opposition to Bill C-95. The Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) has expressed his views very well and has given no useful references. Others who made representation to the committee were concerned with the principles involved with this type of legislative proposal to bring to Canadians a regressive taxation. It is a little like the photo opportunity of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde)-they do not really understand it but they are co-operating and assisting the Government in an indirect taxation that in many cases will do them harm.
The Bill represents a number of shades in a number of areas. It has gone from what I would consider the traditional Liberal red into a very grey area. It clouds a number of principles involved in federalism, democracy and participatory Government.
The first area is the commitment of several hundred million that the federal Government made to the Calgary Olympics. To use this legislation as a guise for fulfilling that commitment is not only questionable because of the undetermined profitability of the Bill, but it is also a back door approach to raising the revenues expected as a result of that commitment.
The second grey area is the whole concept of federal-provincial agreements. Relations are already strained and have been for several years on such things as the energy Bill and the Constitution. In this instance, an agreement was made with the Provinces that they would have exclusive domain over lotteries. Now there is a grand argument about whether the sports pool is a lottery. I understand that the courts may not find in favour of the federal Government. That may not be a major factor in determining whether the sports pool goes forward but it brings to light the federal-provincial agreements that should be honoured by the federal Government if we are to expect to
have co-operation and confidence between Governments in the future.
The third point that many speakers have referred to is the ethics and the morality of this measure. From time to time most of us participate in events related to gambling, whether through buying a lottery ticket, playing Crown and Anchor at an amusement park or some charitable fund raising event. What we have before us is on a very different level, however. The federal Government, the highest institution in the country, is sending a signal to people who are vulnerable, who are potentially compulsive gamblers. We may be promoting a potential disease by this kind of thing whether in the young, the old, or those who are unable to meet their commitments and who become too involved in this type of activity.
Recently a newspaper published the ratio of opportunities to win. Loto Canada gives one chance to win in 600,000. The odds in other lotteries are worse and the opportunity to win can be one in several million. People who participate in this class of activity can dream of being the one person in 600,000 who will win, but participation can create a problem for a family on a rigid budget. As a federal Government we have an obligation to try to avoid promoting this participation.
The fourth grey area is that of Government revenue. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) spoke about regressive taxation. It must be made clear to Canadians that the Government is raising revenue through this type of activity and that it plans to distribute the revenue to activities that all of us would support. It is a means of raising Government revenues. It is not called taxation but it really is taxation and it is often collected from those least able to afford it.
The fifth grey area is federal Crown corporations. We might have a little more confidence in this particular Crown corporation if we had not seen some of the difficulties encountered by previous Crown corporations involved in the lottery business. It is clear that very bad decisions were made. It is a complex and very precise type of activity which requires all of the resources of Government, or whoever is involved, to make sure it is done properly. There are some good examples of extreme waste in running the lotteries. I do not believe anyone in particular, in light of the recent events on the Canadian national scene, can have confidence that this Crown corporation is going to be run any better than any of the other Crown corporations. That, I feel, gives us cause for concern. The whole problem of Cana-dair is the kind of thing which points to the question of whether or not the Government, and the Minister who is responsible, are going to be able to keep up to the management requirements and whether they are going to be able to make the necessary changes in time to avoid abuse and waste which will occur if we are not right on top of it.
The sixth point, which is important, is the question of disbursements of the profits, whatever those profits might be. It is clear there has been a commitment made to the Calgary Olympics. I am sure that all Hon. Members are supportive of the Government honouring that commitment. Beyond that,
June 27, 1983

however, there is a list of what this amendment, which is being proposed at this time, would do. In fact, it would limit the disbursement of these funds to the Calgary Olympics. It would not give the Government the option of disbursing these funds to other areas which are defined, and which may not in fact be defined specifically in the Bill.
I feel the question which arises here, and the grey area, is what happens to these areas, for instance, medical research, when we have a situation where it becomes dependent upon a sports pool and then, all of a sudden, we find, as is happening in Quebec, that the returns are diminishing. There is less and less money available. We would have what to me is a very credible and worth-while project gradually being put in a position where it is very vulnerable because there are not the funds which were anticipated. Therefore, that puts these projects at high risk.
I will probably have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, as further amendments are brought forward, to make additional comments. However, I feel that I should emphasize again that in spite of supporting most of the activities which the Government is suggesting in this legislation, it seems to be a very poor vehicle, one which has more problems than solutions, and we would like to see the Government withdraw it.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to comment on this Bill. It is the kind of Bill which the Government has put forward as a necessity. The Government is saying in effect, "If we do not get this money in this way, we will not have the money to do a lot of these wonderful things which are important for the country." One of the real criticisms of our modern age has been the so-called loss of the moral approach to living. Morality is the fibre of the nation which must be recognized and held dear at all levels. We teach it in the home, we teach it in the schools, we teach it in the church. We hope that it becomes part of every person's way of dealing with life. Then, by a variety of means, our teachings on morality are diverted in such a way that it is difficult for the nation to say, "What you are doing is wrong".
A couple of thousands of years ago the collection of interest was considered immoral and probably today it still is. However, our society has condoned it for so long that we now think of it as quite acceptable. At one time the idea of speculation was considered immoral. If one went out and bought land, for instance, for $1 an acre and sold it for $1,000 an acre a few months later, that was considered immoral. Even excess profits were considered immoral at one time. There was a time when a business considered 5 per cent or 6 per cent of profit on its sales was quite a good profit. Today we allow 300 per cent, 400 per cent 500 per cent profit. And if one cannot make that kind of profit, one is not considered a very good businessman. Therefore, there has been this disintegration of the moral structure to a great extent.
It is the responsibility of the major Governments of the country, the provincial and the federal Governments, to uphold the moral fibre of the country. What is being done in this Bill, and in any Bill of this kind, is the undermining of that structure. There is quite a difference between lotteries or "raffles",
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
as they are called, on a national basis and lotteries or raffles on a local basis. When someone comes to me in my own community to sell a ticket on a raffle, he does not spend a lot of time telling me what a great prize I am going to win if I buy this ticket. What he is actually asking me to do is to contribute very directly to something. I know that is implied in this Bill. However, if one looks at the advertising of lotteries across the country, one finds that it is not the basis on which that advertising is put forward. The advertising of both federal and provincial Governments has always been, "Spend a dollar and win a million. Be a millionaire all at once." The implication, therefore, of the Government's getting into this kind of "business", if you wish, is not in the best interest of the country.
As a number of other Hon. Members have already suggested this evening, besides the concern which we should all have as to whether this is good for the people of Canada, we have here a kind of typical Liberal approach to legislation as a whole. What the Government is suggesting here is that there are a number of items in the Bill which it knows we would like to support, things like the Olympics, culture, the development of the arts, medical research. These are things which it knows everyone is going to support. Therefore, it attaches them to a method of payment which many Hon. Members of this House, and many people across Canada-I would suggest possibly the majority-abhor. It is the method of paying for these benefits which they abhor, using the gambling instincts possibly, and appealing to greed to some extent. It is a method of supplying these benefits, which everyone wants, in such a way that it is difficult to take a stand against it.
However, it is important that we do put up a defence against this kind of development. The Government did the same thing last week with respect to the Crow Bill, which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) pushed through the House. Here again, there was something in this Bill which everyone supported, the development of the railways, the improvement of the railways. However, the method of payment was not supportable by a large portion of the population, at least those who were being asked to pay for it, the farmers of western Canada. Again, one sees the typical Liberal approach of putting in place something that is worthwhile and paying for it with something that is abhorrent.
The federal Government has a responsibility to control funding methods. There are other alternatives in funding these kinds of things. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) suggested direct taxation if we believe that these are the kinds of things we should be supporting and that they are good and necessary for the country. Then we should be quite willing to fund on a direct taxation basis. Also, there are parts of it that I am sure can be done on a straight contribution basis. Many parts of our sports and art structures are already funded on this basis. It can be continued or classified, allowing tax deductions if possible. The method being used and, again, I follow many other Hon. Members, is

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
indirect taxation, but it is one which is not in the least progressive. If one is making $1 million a year, a tax to buy one ticket will cost $10. If one is making $5,000 a year or barely surviving and one decides to buy the ticket, it will still cost $10. Therefore, it is a really regressive tax. If one has $1 million, why should one go out and spend $10 on a ten million to one chance of getting another $1 million? However, if one has only $5,000 a year, it seems like a pretty good idea to spend $10 in the hope that one can gain $1 million. Therefore, this regressive taxation becomes a very great factor. We should consequently remove that kind of method of funding.
Finally, this matter involves a Crown corporation. As the Hon. Member who last spoke said, the people of Canada have watched the Government's involvement with Crown corporations far so long that they no longer trust the ability of the Government to operate a Crown corporation well. This may be a valuable corporation, if it must be established. However, how can we be sure that the Government, which has done so badly in the past with Crown corporations, will operate this one any better than it did Canadair or any of the other large corporations which have lost accountability?


Mr. Thacker:: Or Canagrex.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: It's the same thing.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate this evening but I cannot say that I am happy to do so. Somehow I feel rather sad that this great institution that has such a tremendous responsibility and also an influence for good in our nation should have before it a Bill which I believe tends to erode the very ethical and moral basis and foundation of our country.
I cannot help but think back to when I wore a different hat, or collar. In preaching to my congregation, I would point out the fact that I believed that in the exchange of goods, there were only three principles that were operative: one was by purchase, the second was by barter and the third was an outright gift. When we move into the area in which we are moving with this particular Bill, we are bypassing those basic principles and carrying on one of the weaknesses of humanity, which seems to be becoming more prevalent in these days, that is, to try to get something for nothing, and get it quickly.
There are several components of the Bill that have been mentioned to which I want to refer very briefly again. First, I would start by referring to the matter which was addressed by the previous Hon. Member. His last comment concerned the fact that under the provisions of the Bill we are called upon to set up another Crown corporation. We must remember the words of the Auditor General when he referred to the Crown corporation proliferation as being a sub-government, one that was beyond the control of Parliament and one that did not have any sense of accountability.
When I think of another Crown corporation being set up at a time when there is so much criticism directed toward that type of activity, I somehow feel that we are moving in the wrong direction. We ought to call a halt and consider whether or not we are setting up just one more agency which will be
beyond the power of Parliament to control, one that does not have any sense of responsibility to the Canadian people.
Another matter in that connection is that we are called upon to amend the Criminal Code. Just to bring this to our attention, Clause 33 states:
The Criminal Code is amended by adding thereto, immediately after Section 188 thereof, the following Section:
"188.1 Notwithstanding any provision of this Part relating to gaming or
betting it is lawful
(a) for the Government of Canada to-
That is absolutely reprehensible. It is completely immoral to say that under the Criminal Code a thing is illegal and a crime, and then for the Government to bring in a measure and say, "We will put in a clause and say, regardless of what is in the Criminal Code, that we will do it and we will not be held responsible for it. We cannot be charged under the Criminal Code". What in the world is the Government thinking about? Where are we going in this country? It is absolutely wrong for a person or a community to do something, yet a Government can do it, wrapping itself in the garb of irresponsibility and saying, "In spite of what the Criminal Code says, we will do it and you cannot charge us for the crime". I wonder how much has been spent in pressuring people to do what is intrinsically wrong according to the Criminal Code. The Government will advertise and urge the people to do what is wrong according to the Criminal Code. I would like to know just how much money Governments have spent in the past in order to get people to do what I have suggested is wrong. May I say that the Government is completely irresponsible. It is immoral for a Government to do this.
It is asking us to go ahead and pass this measure. I believe that if the projects that are stated as being the recipients of assistance in this Bill are laudable causes, which they are, they should not be left to chance. They should be provided for from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the money obtained in a legitimate fashion from the people of Canada instead of through the back door via this particular mechanism.
I know that the Government will say that we are advocating greater Government expenditures. But I can outline many projects which the Government could eliminate and transfer that money to meet the demands and requirements of these particular causes. It would be far more commendable for the Government to spend its money there than the way it is spending it now.
I have documents here from the Council of Christian Reform Churches in Canada. I also have statements by the executive committee of the Baptist Federation of Canada and the Commission on Moral and Social Standards and Issues of the Salvation Army, as well as the working unit on social issues in justice, division of missions in Canada of the United Church of Canada. They suggest and urge us to reject this Bill and vote against it because they believe it is detrimental to the fabric of our nation. I believe that we ought to reject it.
June 27, 1983

I wonder why no Liberals will stand up to defend this measure. Are they all in agreement that this Bill should go through? I wish there were at least some who would stand up and say that they believe this measure is wrong and that they will not support it. The plea that 1 make today is that the Minister withdraw his Bill and realize that it is thoroughly wrong.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in this debate and begin by commending the Hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) for a first rate speech in the House. Once again, it shows how common sense can be brought to bear on these issues that are matters of great social concern to the country yet how the Government itself, because it either needs the money or is not prepared to face Canadians with a tax proposal that meets the program proposal, tries to do something indirectly which it dare not do openly or honestly. However, Government Members, some of whom I know, are opposed to this Bill. Some have spoken to us privately and said that they do not think that this is the type of society and country our ancestors envisaged. However, since this measure got through Cabinet and the Cabinet permitted this Bill to go before the House, those Members sit quietly. That is why my friend from Fraser Valley East is disappointed and that is why I am disappointed. Other Bills as well have left us disappointed when we knew that Members opposite personally did not believe that a Cabinet piece of legislation was wise but yet they sat quietly. It is certainly an argument in favour of the proposal from the special committee on procedure that there be more free votes in the House. I believe we would see an enormous shift over votes and consequently a much more sensitive Cabinet. A Cabinet which would continue to push through Bills against which large numbers of its own Members were rising to speak would soon have to respond to those people.
The basic message clearly gets out to ordinary Canadians. I believe, along with other people in this country, that this is part of a larger plan to take much more power into the central jurisdiction of Canada. Howe could this be done with Canadians who have been raised on a broadly decentralized power in the country, with individual responsibility at the family and community level, a little less at the provincial level and a little less at the federal level? First, it would demoralize people in their own individual families and communities. One clear way to do that is to bankrupt them and make them even more dependent on a handout. Programs would then be introduced for people to receive a grant from the Government. They would soon learn to respond to that. They would be given the illusion of wealth by having them spend more money than is being taken from them. This is what we have seen since this Government came to power. The national debt has been built up to $160 billion, including some of the Crown corporation debts. This simply means that the Government has stimulated the economy every year-this year by some $30 billion-which makes everyone think that there is more money available than there really is. While they receive the benefit of this for some time, it always leads to inflation, high interest rates, a collapse
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
and then a period of great disorientation and allowance. This is what we are faced with today.
The second way to achieve this centralization is to tax people to death. Taxes simply mean that someone else decides how to spend the money that those of us who work in the mines, on the farm or in Parliament, earn. After we have paid our taxes at the municipal, provincial and federal level as well as our income tax, we find that we have very little disposable income left. That tends to make people give up, which demoralizes them.
The third method is to bring out, as the church groups call it, the bread and circuses. It keeps people happy with minimum bread and maximum circuses, or, something for nothing. That is really part of the Crown corporation spiel. This includes Petro-Canada which really purports to tell people that it is ours and that we have no energy problem in this country, whereas the fact is that we have an incredibly serious energy problem. We Members from the West, particularly from Alberta, stand up time and again to argue how we had 16 billion barrels of light conventional crude in the ground, and that it is now down to four billion barrels and dropping. When that conventional crude is gone from the western plains, this nation will be in very serious trouble because we will be held in the iron grip of those Middle Eastern countries which are unstable, not because their people are bad on an individual basis but as a result of ancient animosity and religious and ethnic hatreds that have built up. For us as an industrial nation to be left in their hands is a criminal act which should not be permitted.
1 join with other Members in dealing with this amendment in Clause 14(b) for all of the general reasons such as the question of whether we as a society should be involved in gambling. It seems to me that we should rather be discussing our national defence structure and how we can promote disarmament on a world-wide basis since all of humanity will be lost if that issue is not resolved. We should be discussing the great social issues such as prostitution and abortion. Why are we at this time spending the time of the House on a gaming Bill which is in direct violation, in my opinion, of the agreement that had been entered into with the provincial Governments that we would permit only the one lottery to continue, one mistake having been made? We have received tens of millions of dollars from the provincial Governments pursuant to that agreement-$98 million, my friend from Edmonton tells me-and now we are going to try to undercut them with another one. It will lead to another federal-provincial confrontation. It certainly is not wise.
This Bill truly appeals to the sort of baser interests that we all have. I am sure all of us have bought lottery tickets and perhaps will continue to do so. Perhaps the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) does. He is the only perfect man, I guess.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I buy lottery tickets.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act


Blaine Allen Thacker: It seems that this is a nation which has lost sight of its future.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Hope springs eternal.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Hope springs eternal, but out of the $110,000 a year which the Minister gets from the people of Canada and the $65,000 I get as a Member of Parliament from the people of Canada, that $5 provincial ticket or that $10 lottery ticket is nothing. But to our friends who are labouring in mines and to farmers whose average income is less that $12,000 a year who are suffering in generally tough times the prospect of $1 million seems enormous. It is an attraction that you could expect reasonable people to fall for. But the effect is to impose upon them a direct tax. When you add that to the direct sales taxes which the feds have imposed so dramatically in the last few years and add it to all the fuel tax people must pay, the alcohol taxes, the cigarette taxes, in addition to the income tax that people have to pay, there is just no disposable income left at all. I ask the Minister whether that is wise for a society. Does it lead to a great future for Canada? I say no. It is legislation for a country that is sliding down the other side of a hill. Rather than climbing up the mountain and building a strong society, we are sliding down as they did in the last years of the Roman empire and other empires throughout history.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe every country, certainly Canada, should be encouraging athletic events inside the country. We should get people to come from other countries. They add buoyancy to our economy and this allows the development of skills in our own individuals, particularly our young people. Whenever any community makes an application for an Olympic event the Government should say whether or not it will give assistance. This Government promised assistance to the Calgary Olympic Association. The association presented its brochure and brief on the understanding that the Canadian Government would back the association to the extent of so many dollars. But then the Government puts on provisos completely contrary to the principle of athletics events, completely contrary to the morals of this country that have been with us for so many years. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker, completely wrong.
I want to make it very clear that I support the Olympics and the Government's providing money for the Olympics as it promised. But I do not support this type of legislation. I will tell you why.
First, we are setting up another corporation. I am suspicious of corporations. We have too many of them now. Maybe that is not a very good reason but that is one reason why we should not trust this Bill.
Second, this Bill will amend the Income Tax Act so that the $10.5 million of the taxpayers' money that is being given to this corporation will not be a loan but a gift. It is a gift to enable the Government to carry out gambling in this country. We are amending the Income Tax Act. This is not a loan. If this pool system is going to be doing so well, why does it not
pay back the taxpayers' money? Part of this money belongs to thousands of taxpayers who do not believe in gambling, who would not buy a lottery ticket under any circumstances because they do not want to be a bad example to their children. Most of us buy lottery tickets, but that does not make it right. But this tax money belongs to all the people of Canada. The Government has no right to use that money for purposes which our people would not condone. If it does, the Government is leaving itself wide open to criticism. This Government is using taxpayers' money to do something that now is illegal in this country. But then it says, "It is illegal only if someone else does it." Let us take a look at the Criminal Code of Canada. Let me quote Section 185 and part of Section 186 under the heading "Gaming and Betting". It reads:
185.	(1) Every one who keeps a common gaming house or common betting house is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
(2) Every one who
(a)	is found, without lawful excuse, in a common gaming house or common
betting house, or
(b)	as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier or agent, knowingly permits a
place to be let or used for the purposes of a common gaming house or common
betting house,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
186.	(1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) uses or knowingly allows a place under his control to be used for the purpose of recording or registering bets or selling a pool;
Everyone who does that is liable for a prison term.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is not enough room in the prisons of Canada for all those people.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: They deserve a prison term.


Gordon Edward Taylor: If this is wrong, the Government says, "We will just change it". Thank God this Government did not write the Bible or there would be nothing on earth that is wrong. There would be no right or wrong. The Government could do anything it liked.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Going to heaven is a gamble.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Right now it is bad enough with the Government's laws. It let a man abuse a little girl and murder her and then it expects the taxpayer to keep him the rest of his life. The Government will not even have him punished.


An Hon. Member:: An eye for an eye.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I thank God this Government did not write the Bible, but the Bible is still there and the Bible means something to most of us. It sets out what is right and what is wrong. It sets an example. But here we have a Government setting an example by telling young people to forget about the Criminal Code. It says, "If you do something wrong, we will change the code. It is not wrong. It is wrong if John Jones does it. He will go to jail for two years. It is okay if the Minister of State does it because he is part of the Government."
June 27, 1983

What kind of example is that to the boys and girls of our nation? When I was a scout master we were hard up for money. This was during the tough years and we needed money. We thought that perhaps we could raffle something. We looked into the rules and regulations of the Boy Scout Manual, but nothing doing. To raffle something was wrong and we did not want to start teaching Boy Scouts how to gamble. That would be just a beginning. It is little foxes that spoil the vines. If we start with little things, the little things lead to big things. So we did not do it. We did not have a raffle. Today most of those young people are holding responsible positions because they learned what was right and what was wrong. They did not do what was wrong even though it would have meant money in their pockets, a better camp, a better hall and better equipment. They went without rather than doing something that was wrong according to the laws of the country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Adjust your halo.


Gordon Edward Taylor: But this Government simply changes the law. My colleague has just handed me the Bill and it reads:
Notwithstanding any provision of this Part relating to gaming or betting, it is lawful-
That is the kind of Government we have in this country. Government Members just simply say, "We will make black into white and white into black".


Donald W. Munro: Morally corrupt.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, morally corrupt. That is how the great empires of history became nothing after their glorious days. They started ignoring the things that were wrong and saying that they were right. There is no right or wrong any more. We are getting more like that in this country.
Here we have a law which we expect the House of Commons and the Senate to pass. If it ever passes here, the Senate will say, "Yea, yea". Members in the other place will have to do it because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tells them that they have to do so. We even passed a law with less than a quorum, with 13 Members in the House. The Senate has no principles; it passed the law and said that it was okay. It will do the same thing for this piece of legislation. It is another reason that it is wrong, completely wrong.
Then we have an Income Tax Act which says that if a person wins he does not have to pay taxes. It is simply to encourage people to spend money on betting. It is worse than Las Vegas. If a person wins a sizeable sum of money in Las Vegas, he has to pay the tax immediately to the American Government. Here we are saying to people, "Go ahead and gamble". Government Members are saying that it is no longer contrary to the Criminal Code and that they do not have to pay tax on their winnings. They can win $500,000 and do not have to pay tax, even though taxpayers' dollars will be taken from the fund and given to this corporation with no interest, not as a loan but as a gift. Approximately $10.5 million of the people's money will be given to the corporation to do with what
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
it likes. It will teach young Canadians to become gamblers and that gaming is okay. Then something else will be okay, and there will be no morals left in the country. Surely we should expect the Government of a nation to stand high on the principles which built the nation. Those who came to Canada from other parts of the world came because they could worship in the way their conscience dictated; they could teach their children high principles and not suffer persecution. Now they are changing the laws of a country which were written to keep things right. Now they are saying there is no wrong any more.
If it is wrong, the Government does it and it becomes right. If it is wrong for an individual, the Government blatantly passes a law and says that it is okay for the Government to do it. What is the country coming to? What is the country coming to when the Government says to our young people that it is wrong for John Smith, the poor coal miner, to go into a gaming house and win $10 or $15 and that he will be put in jail for two years, and if a minister of state wins $500,000, he will not have to pay taxes on it or go to jail? It is wrong for the little guy but it is okay for the Government. What kind of a country are we building? The Government should sit up and think about what it is doing before Canada is in utter ruins, without morals and completely morally bankrupt, denying all the things for which we fought and lived to make the country worthwhile.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I have but a few remarks to direct to Motion No. 2, the amendment proposed with respect to Clause 14 of Bill C-95, a clause which deals with the objects and powers of the corporation, another Crown corporation being established by the Government which seems intent upon proliferating the growth of Crown corporations so that, hopefully, beyond the reach of the House, there will be created a new substructure of quasi-government actions that, when questioned by Members of the House, may be met by the standard reply that it is an independent corporation for which little answer may be given in the House of Commons. It strikes me that that process to which we have been subjected all too often in the House is one that undermines the real authority of the House of Commons and deprives us as Members of an opportunity to deal effectively with the way in which agencies of Government conduct their affairs.
The agency of Government with which we are concerned today is clearly a betting or gambling agency, and it is one that particularly requires the attention of Members of the House of Commons. It was not long ago that another government, the one which immediately preceded this one, managed to extricate the Government of Canada from an involvement in a gambling business, a business which I suspect, regardless of who operates it, is carrying on somewhat reprehensible work having regard to the victims of the process. Very clearly there is little doubt but that the victims of the process here are people who can least afford to be victimized.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh, oh!

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act


John Albert Gamble: I know that may be amusing to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) who consistently interrupts. I am sure he will avail himself of this opportunity to stand in his place and speak on the Bill. Failing to do that, I would hope that he would just hold his peace until I have concluded. I know that may be too much to ask of the Minister. Perhaps we can indeed expect him to stand up and explain the great virtues and values of this peace of proposed legislation, although having regard to his conduct in the past, I rather suspect that that is a bit too much to expect.
The great problem, as I was explaining, is that the people who are systematically victimized are those who can least afford to be caught up in another process of wagering on the ultimate outcome of what will be a new gambling venture. It is important for us to recognize that in the event the Government of Canada has abandoned the usual raising of revenues, by any mode or system of taxation as it is authorized to do under the provisions of the Constitution, it should reflect upon using this particular mode of taxation which carries with it an induced voluntary element which I must confess will extract more revenues from Canadians. In this case very clearly the majority of revenues will come from people who are least able to pay them. From the standpoint of raising revenues, in the event that the Government approaches this matter in a businesslike fashion, ought it not to be concerned about the ultimate consequences of its other sources of guaranteed contract revenue from other lottery ventures in which it is indeed a partner?
The proliferation of lotteries with additional costs and expenses of advertising and promotion surely will not return, I suspect, the kind of revenues the Government of Canada expects to generate from its own individual effort, having regard to the funds that it has been assured of receiving from its joint businesslike partnership arrangement with the Provinces. To say that this venture, in competition with itself as a partner in another venture, is poor business is to put it as gently as I can. It is very clear, recognizing that there is a tendency among the people of Canada to wager on gaming or lottery type devices, that the Government wishes to have 100 per cent of the pie, in this case regardless of what those consequences may bring to it in terms of revenue generated otherwise.
Let me pass, if I may, to an issue that has been raised time and time again, that is, the great merits of the scheme, having regard to an obligation which the Government undertook with respect to the 1988 Calgary Olympics and the defence so often raised that this particular Bill is necessary in the event that money is in fact to be made available by the Government of Canada to fund a federal Government obligation to the Olympics. Very clearly the federal Government has that obligation. It has that obligation because these are national events in Canada conducted on an international scale. It is an obligation of the Government of Canada to support the worthwhile work of a city or community which has gone out on a limb and committed itself to bring to our country an event of the significance of the Olympic games in Calgary. The Government of Canada should be proud to participate and to carry
out its Ftndancial obligations rather than endeavour to push this Bill through the House, justifying its existence and coercing some to adhere to its passage on the basis that this is a panacea for the raising of funds for an international athletic meet.
If you examine the provisions of the Bill, you find that clearly that is but one of a variety of purposes allegedly advanced by the Government to induce Members of the House to support this piece of legislation. Under Clause 18(3) we find moneys may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, to which moneys are ultimately paid by the corporation, on a fixed term out of the revenues of the corporation "for the support of one or more of the following activities". Then a group of activities is listed, one of which happens to be the 1988 Calgary Olympics.
In the event that this Bill was designed to accomplish the purpose alleged by the Government, I would have thought we would find a sunset clause built into the Bill which would have brought the existence of this corporation to a grinding halt when the required funding for the Olympics had come and gone, but that is not the case.
To pass on to another consideration, my great concern is the required financing. Here is a money-making operation that requires $10.5 million seed money to start. There are additional funds that may be advanced. They may be advanced by the Minister of Finance on the application of the corporation, approved by the Minister, and the total amount that may be advanced under those additional financing clauses by way of loan shall not exceed $20 million. Therefore, we are looking at $30.5 million. Having regard for the rather complicated fashion that has been gone through for the purpose of setting up this corporation, the corporation will probably go through that money in short order. We will have another drag on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the finances of this country through another Crown corporation would get out of hand as they habitually do, much to the detriment of the taxpayers.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) has just arrived. He wishes to speak on Motion No. 2.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair did notice the Hon. Member come into the House as it was prepared to put the question. I will recognize the Hon. Member.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that one gets such attention when rising to speak in the House when one has to interrupt the deliberations of the Chair. The importance of the Bill we are now considering warrants that kind of attention. We have heard many arguments raised against the provisions of this Bill. What we have
June 27, 1983

not delt with is the whole perception of this kind of legislation as it is introduced in the House of Commons. It is something we should spend some time considering.
It is a very simple matter to introduce in the House of Commons a Bill and make a claim amongst and to Members of the House of Commons and to the public as to what is the purpose and the purport of that kind of legislation. That is what we have in Bill C-95 which enacts the Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act. We are told that this Bill must have the approval of the House of Commons and must be passed in order to save the Olympics for Calgary. Surely it is a matter of perception that the purpose of this Bill is to deal with the Olympic games that are to be held in Calgary in 1984 and that the provisions of this Bill will save the Olympic games from financial ruin.
We on this side of the House know that that is not the real purpose of the Bill. If this were a Bill to aid and finance the Olympic games which are to take place in Calgary in the next year and bring credit to Canada, credit to the great Province of Alberta, credit to all athletes in Canada and across the world who participate in the Olympic games, we would of course favour it and devote our time and attention to its early passage. That is what the Government tries to sell us and the Canadian public as being the purpose of this Bill. It says, "Pass this Bill and the Olympics will be saved, not only for Calgary in 1988 but possibly for all time".
We want to stand here and tell the people of Canada through the medium of this debate on Bill C-95 that that is not the case. The case is that the Government wants to get back into the lottery business. It has seen this weakness on the part of the Canadian people. It has seen this desire on the part of the Canadian people, myself included, to get that pie in the sky, to get that million dollars from nowhere, to invest $10 and become a millionaire forever. It wants to play on that weakness of mine and of other Canadians.
The Government wants back in there because its sources of revenue have dried up. It can no longer tax Canadians in the ordinary way. It cannot impose another income tax, excise tax, sales tax and a tax on air transportation or ground transportation. We can go on and on with taxes. The Government has run out of taxes. Revenues are dried up, so it wants another tax, a voluntary tax. It has taxed the people of Canada to the limit and is now looking for other kinds of taxes. That is what Bill C-95 is all about. Don't kid yourself about that. Bill C-95 is another kind of tax. It is a voluntary tax. You do not have to pay this tax. If you are strong and you realize the percentage of winning is nearly nil and recognize that it is hard work that leads to success and not the luck of the draw, you will not be taxed. However, if you are looking for pie in the sky, for a better tomorrow, for $10 to win you a million dollars, here is the kind of tax you want to pay. That is what the Government is doing to the people of Canada.
The Government is sick of people putting up all this money in the form of a voluntary tax and its not getting any benefit, so it wants back into the field. The federal Government withdrew from the field under the Progressive Conservative Government. It considered this source of "taxation" one that
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
should behoove and apply to the Provinces of Canada rather than to federal authority which, in a traditional and practical way, has the real source of taxation, a tax on the income of the people.
You cannot go wrong with a tax on the income of people. It goes up and down with the economy. If you cannot get your money out of income tax, you are in big trouble. That is the kind of problem the Government of Canada has today. It is in big trouble because it cannot get all the money it needs to pay for all the services it provides from the basic income tax. It has to broaden its tax base. It has to go into areas occupied by the Provinces and municipalities to find those revenues. That is the reason for this insatiable appetite of the federal Government to collect money, not only by normal taxation but by the latest kind of taxation, that is, a lottery.
If you do not agree that this is a tax, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about the pari-mutuel betting which has been in existence in Canada for over 50 years. That is a source of revenue to the Government of Canada and to the Provinces. It is betting and it is a tax. The Governments take 20 per cent of the revenue or, actually, up to 24 per cent. But that is done legitimately. The Government says to the people involved in pari-mutuel betting at race tracks, "Put all your money in a pool and we, the Government and the track that operates the pool and the races, will take a percentage." The Government gains the taxation resource from that activity in exactly that way. That is quite fair. Everybody knows the rules.
A lottery is no different in kind or in substance. It is the same. It is a betting or wagering activity. You put your money up, Mr. Speaker, and you take your chances. In this case, the difference is that the Government of Canada that is operating the sports pool endorsed by Bill C-95 will not tell you what your return is versus the taxation aspect, Mr. Speaker. That is the only difference between this Bill with its sports pool based on a lottery and pari-mutuel betting.
The Government will not tell you what its take is, Mr. Speaker. It will not tell you whether it is 20 per cent, which is a legitimate marginal take from a wagering activity, or whether it is more. The Government wants more. In fact, as I understand it, it wants 35 per cent. In normal wagering terms, that is unfair on the face of it. That is too much money to take from Canadian people who put their money in a pool that has one declared winner from amongst the people who have participated. One out of every three dollars is too much to take. It is not the traditional rule of 20 per cent applicable to pari-mutuel betting.
Even if Government Members are right, they are wrong. Even if they are right to introduce this legislation in the House of Commons that provides for a sports pool for those willing to engage in that kind of activity, they are wrong about the amount of revenue they expect and want from that activity, particularly when it is borne in mind that no other organization or institution shares in the profits of this exercise. They
26816

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
claim that they will take those profits and distribute them among various organizations. I am sure that other speakers who have participated in this debate have indicated the potential sharers in this ultimate profit, and there are a great number of them. They include hospitals, medical research, and a whole variety of purposes.
The problem with the Government of Canada today is that nobody believes it any more. It makes all of these lavish claims but it does not back them up with real obligations.
Let me just say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-95 which is designed to set up the sports pool is before us. We know it is unfair to the people of Canada. It takes too much and it does not even guarantee back to those people of Canada who have participated in it a fair return on their investment, nor does it indicate in any real way that the people of Canada will benefit.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to the discussion on the amendment that has been moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid). It is important that we put what we are debating into perspective. I will repeat to some extent what I have said earlier, but I think it is well known in the House that I oppose gaming and lotteries and especially the way in which Governments, with their moral obligation to the citizens at large, use advertising which at best is questionable to entice people to get involved in lotteries. When Governments advertise that to purchase a lottery ticket is to buy a dream, the force of Government is behind that advertising to the degree that it is believed that if Government is doing it, it possibly should not or does not face the same kind of scrutiny as would be faced by a private individual who put forward a game of chance.
Second, the Government has indicated that it needs this lottery in order to fund the Calgary Olympics. It is surely known by anyone who has looked at the application made by the Calgary Olympic Committee that the only reason the International Olympic Committee recognized and gave approval to the bid from Calgary is that the Calgary sponsors had in their possession a letter stating that the Government of Canada (a), welcomed the Olympics to Canada and (b), would help with the financing of the Olympics. There was no question in the minds of the members of the International Olympic Committee that that support was conditional on whether Parliament would support a sports lottery or a stamp program or an official souvenir or artifact program in order to provide the federal portion of the funding necessary. The only criterion was that the letter was a valid letter from the Government of Canada, the invitation was valid and the financial support was guaranteed. That was it.
The amendment that has been proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines, brings directly into focus the deception that is being foisted on the House and the Canadian people by the Government through this Bill, because this Bill does not restrict itself only to the Calgary Olympics. The argument that the Government would like to see take root in Canadian society is that anyone who is against Bill C-95 is against the Olympics and against athletes competing one
against another. That is not the issue. The Government wants to get back into the gaming business and it is using the Calgary Olympics as the vehicle by which to do so. Let us be blunt about it. That is what it is.
I know that those of us who have been against Government involvement in the gaming business for some time have been described in various ways. We have been told that we cannot impose our code of morality on the general public. That, Mr. Speaker, is a specious argument at best. Surely every time legislation is passed, that legislation or the regulations flowing therefrom are meant to control or limit in some way the actions of members of society.
Another argument that is used is that gaming does not hurt and that it is voluntary. Gaming hurts, Mr. Speaker. It might not hurt the Members of the House who may put a few dollars into a pool at the time of the Stanley Cup playoffs or the Grey Cup game. All evidence shows that a disproportionate number of people who buy this type of lottery tickets are from the lower economic strata of society.
It is then argued that we cannot protect everyone from his or her own folly. The argument is that you cannot protect everyone from his or her folly. How much time is spent in this House debating social policy with the hope that the human condition will be improved? I think it is almost a violation of what the Government says it stands for to bring in this type of legislation.
The other argument that is put forward is that the Government would not otherwise be able to fund worthwhile projects but that now it can find the funding through lotteries or gaming. I have always held that if the project is valid, that is what the Canadian people should be told and the money should be raised in the same way that it is for everything else that is valid-through taxation.
There is another reason why the Government wants to be in the gaming business, Mr. Speaker. I have been harshly criticized for using this expression but I will use it again-lottery proceeds are a great slush fund for Governments. They can use the money, which they did not get through direct taxation, to hand out all kinds of largesse, a pier here and there, saying, "The Government is doing this for you". There has been too much of that in society already, Mr. Speaker. Surely when the federal Government is finally extricated from this mess it should not want to jump back in with both feet.
1 know it is not too common in the House any more to listen to what the churches have to say. But the churches are comprised of Canadians who have some very legitimate concerns about the direction that society takes and, 1 should like to think, they have a more perceptive view of what some of the steps taken today and some of the easy approvals that the House asks for such as in Bill C-95, can lead to.
I should like to put on record an except from a letter from the Lutheran Church in America-Canada Section, as follows:
June 27, 1983

At its March 10-12, 1983 meeting, the Executive Committee of the Lutheran Church in America-Canada Section adopted the following motion:
That the LCA-CS, on the basis of our position previously taken, go on
record as being opposed to Bill C-95 and that the Government be so informed.
Today I received a telegram from the senior staff officer of the Church in Society, the United Church of Canada, signed by the Rev. Robert G. Lindsey. It reads as follows:
This is the time to stop further Government promotion of gambling in Canada. The United Church of Canada concerned with the Government's refusal to understand its obligation to support morality in Canada rather than to undermine it. We hope that you will do whatever is in your power to stop Bill C-95 from becoming law in Canada. Refer you to the brief by the Interchurch Committee on Gambling and Lotteries circulated to the Communications and Culture Committee December 14, 1982, re C-95 which was sent to you at a later date.
I hope that the Government, including the public servants who are responsible for the Bill, will not sit back and look at the arguments advanced against Bill C-95 as coming from another age. What we are dealing with are some of the bedrocks on which society was formed-decency, morality and the Government upholding that morality. Bill C-95 does not do that, and 1 oppose it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in the debate on Bill C-95 with much the same feeling as that expressed by my colleagues who have already spoken. The Bill is supposed to be a refinement of benefits for the people of Canada, proposed by the Government, but I have not heard a Member of the Government try to make the case for the benefits that can be derived through lotteries.
In 1979 when the Conservative Government was in power, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) was Minister in charge of the Fitness and Sports Directorate. In conjunction with the Provinces he and the Cabinet made the decision that if the Provinces wished to tax through lotteries they could do so, and that by giving up something that the federal Government had total control over, the federal Government would derive some benefit. To date the federal Government has derived almost $100 million but now it is trying again to involve itself in the lottery business, the gambling business, the gaming business.
1 come from a part of the country where the men and women on the farms are gambling every year-with mother nature and their expertise. I do not think they need a lottery to stimulate their blood; it is stimulated every year when it does not rain or when it hails or when mother nature causes problems.
What did the Government do with that $100 million? The B-ski team had to come home last year and some of the members were assessed for representing the country. The Government claimed that it did not have any money-but it had $100 million and it had the general revenue of the country with which to support those young men and women-those fine athletes who represent the country. Instead, it billed them additional charges and for travel.
In Clause 14 the Bill sets out the objects of the corporation as follows:
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
(1) The objects of the Corporation are (a) to organize, operate and manage, alone or jointly with the governments of any one or more provinces with which the Corporation has entered into an agreement or agreements for such purpose, pool systems in accordance with regulations made pursuant to section 16;
That is already in place, Mr. Speaker. The only difference is that the Provinces have control over it. The Provinces take the lead and if they feel that is the way they would like to assist and they would like to impose lotteries upon their people, then that is fine.
Why get the federal Government more deeply involved at this time in a process of taxation-for this is purely taxation and has nothing whatsoever to do with recreation or leisure? There is a hue and cry about the Calgary Olympics. I do not think any Member on either side of the House would deny the Calgary Olympics any funding that is necessary. I do not know anyone who wished to deny funding for the Montreal Olympics when they took place either. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is not necessary in order to provide funding for the Calgary Olympics. I would like to see any one of the Hon. Members on the Government benches stand and explain why a lottery is necessary in order to provide funding for an Olympic-type games, a grandiose meeting of young men and women from across Canada and athletes from around the world. Why must we have a lottery to do that? More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the Calgary Olympics are about fourth on the list. Clause 18(3) of the Bill states, and I quote:
There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to or for the support of any one or more of
(a)	activities in the following fields:
(i)	the arts and culture,
(ii)	fitness and amateur sport, and
(iii)	medical and health research-
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), Mr. Speaker, stood in this House and condemned some of the methods used to provide health care by the Provinces because there is not enough funding provided by the federal Government and here we have a lottery put into place, Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: And she hates it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) says she disagrees with the lottery, and she may. I believe in committee she said she despised the lottery system, but here it is, Mr. Speaker, in this Bill.
One of the beneficiaries of this gambling system which is being put in place by the Government is health and medical research. Surely, Mr. Speaker, health and medical research is too important to be linked with gaming and gambling in this country. We, as Canadians, should be able to provide that type of research without resorting to taxing those who are gambling on a dream, who are really risking what they have because they think there is an easier way. Most of these people, deep down, know that the odds are against them, but it is a chance and it is there, so they put out the $5 or $10.

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
1 am not arguing on the grounds of morality that gambling as proposed in this Bill is bad. I strongly support my colleagues who have spoken on it and appreciate the support which the churches have given to our Party in trying to stop this Bill. However, if one looks at the rationale, the reason behind people being put into the position of having to put out $5 or $10 every week or month to better themselves, it must fall on the shoulders of the Government; it must be a failure of the Government to provide another form, another way of getting ahead, another way of attaining that Canadian dream which so many people in this day and age under this administration have been denied. If the best that this Government can offer, Mr. Speaker, is a lottery, a chance of one in six million or one in ten million, I cannot help but know that it will suffer the eventual rejection by the people of Canada.
After the heading of the Winter Olympic Games to be held at Calgary, it is stated, and I quote:
(r) worthy capital projects of national interest in the fields described in subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii)-
We do not even know, Mr. Speaker, what these "worthy capital projects" could be. The problem here is that the Government is asking us to pass a Bill with nothing definite in it. We have five or six proposals as to how this money may be used for the benefit of Canadians, but we have nothing specific. The only specific is the Winter Olympic Games to be held at Calgary, without specific amounts, and that is fourth on the list. If that is all the Government can put forward which is specific, I will be voting against this Bill.
The Government claims on the one hand that it does not have enough money. It does not want to add a tax right up front, lay it out and say, "Here is a tax and it is for medical research." The people of Canada would not object to that. The people of Canada would understand that. However, on the one hand it says it does not have enough money, and is afraid to raise taxes because it feels it has already raised taxes and has spent that money frivolously. However, paragraph 34 of the Bill says, "If you bet, if you take a chance, if you gamble, and if you win a million bucks, we are not going to tax you. It is going to be tax free." It does not make a lot of sense, Mr. Speaker, that on the one hand the Government is afraid to impose a tax and on the other hand, if one wins through the lottery system, it is not going to collect a tax. I look forward within the next few days to taking part in the debate on the other motions in respect of Bill C-95.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) with respect to Bill C-95, an Act to provide for Government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act.
It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have before the House in Bill C-95 a Bill which legalizes in fact that which is now illegal. This is a Bill through which the Government imposes upon all Canadians, those who have a voice and those who do not, the legalization of gambling, lotteries, betting and pools. I would like to make very clear in this House, and to the people of Canada, that no one on this side of the House is against the Olympic Games being held in Calgary. We are not
against that noble, upright and honest purpose. We stand in support of our youth and of the people from various countries who compete. We stand behind them fully. I would suggest to this House, Mr. Speaker, and to the country of Canada, that the Canadian people would stand behind such a noble undertaking as the Olympic Games.
It was mentioned earlier by the Hon. Member for Kinders-ley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) that when the Olympic Games were held in Montreal, the Canadian people supported and backed them fully. The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) read into the record the protests of two major denominations and many other churches which have sent protests to the various Hon. Members of this House against what is being done to encourage betting and gambling. The motive of the Olympics is a high one, but the direction in which the Government undertakes to finance it is absolutely demoralizing to the country and to its people. I suggest that I, for one, cannot support the direction being taken in Bill C-95.
You will notice it is the poor who will be hurt. It is the person who probably is not thinking at the time and who invests maybe his last $10 in something which he believes will make him a wealthy person. Therefore, it is a tax upon the poor.
What about the morality of this matter? I believe there must be a question of whether it is right for a Government to inflict this kind of legislation upon the people of this country in the way in which it is inflicted. It is bringing before this House legislation which, as I mentioned earlier, legalizes that which is illegal. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to Hon. Members on the other side, particular by the Ministers, that if they would go to the Canadian people with a plebiscite on this type of legislation, asking them if they are willing to support athletic events in an upright and noble manner, the people of Canada would say, "Yes, we would." However, if the Government continues in the direction it has taken through the Bill, I would say that it would receive a big "no" from the people of Canada. People in general are not in favour of this type of legislation and this type of moral approach to athletics. The Government could find other ways.
If one considers the Crown corporation which is being put into place to create, to control and to conduct gambling, pooling and betting to support the athletic event in Calgary, one might ask oneself, in what other ways could a Government move? We should consider some of the outrageous spending of the Government and some of the Crown corporations, particularly Canadair, involving $1.4 billion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Even makes gambling look good.


Leonard J. Gustafson: It would make it look very sickly. It would promote, I suppose, one of the largest athletic events in the history of Canada.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In the world.
June 27, 1983


Leonard J. Gustafson: Probably in the world, as the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) says, just by some responsible direction by Government.
1 want to make this point. Government Members opposite may say, "This is hindsight. We could not help it. We just were not on the ball. We were not looking after the business of the people of the country. We will admit that we were not responsible". If they are not saying it, they should say it. However, 1 am suggesting that what we need in this country is responsible Government in all Crown corporations, and a responsibility to the morale of the country and to the morals of the people whom we represent in the House. I do not see this as being a responsible move in a country like Canada, considering its roots, its background and, I should say, the importance Canadian people place on the Government's moral responsibilities in the House and to the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I should explain to the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) that I do not see, I hear.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I have noticed that, Mr. Speaker, when you are recognizing me.


Charles James Mayer: You don't hear very well, is what he is saying.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Then 1 can assure the Hon. Member that he is well-favoured.
Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: That Bill C-95, An Act to provide for Government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act, be amended in Clause 18 by striking out lines 11 to 20 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"of the XV Winter Olympic games to be held at Calgary, Alberta,"
He said: Mr. Speaker, I must say it is with some pleasure that I put before the House Motion No. 3 which has the effect of making the XV Winter Olympics, to be held in Calgary, the sole beneficiary of whatever games the Government introduces as the result of the proposed legislation. The Government and,
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
perhaps particularly, the Minister responsible for the processing of the Bill through the House, have been heard to say far too frequently that if the Opposition continues to delay the Bill, then Calgary will suffer or, particularly, the Calgary Olympics will suffer. However, I want to emphasize now, as I have before, that it is not the Official Opposition that is delaying the passage of the Bill. The Minister and those on the other side must recall that it was rushed through the House, through second reading, so that it could go through the committee stage before Christmas of 1982. Here we are in the last week of this session, June of 1983, with the Government trying again to rush it through the House.
We have said with some degree of frequency that what the Government should do is to separate the sports pool Bill from the funding of the Calgary Olympics. The Government knows full well that even with the passage of the Bill today, if it happened to pass today, it would be a matter of years before the Calgary Olympics would receive any benefits from any of the resources of the Bill that is before us today.
Besides that, there are several options open to the Calgary organizational committee. However, any one of those options is dependent on the co-operation of the federal Government as, for instance, the offer which was made by the Provinces through the interprovincial lottery corporation during the committee stage, that they would assist the federal Government or even carry the commitment of the federal Government to Calgary and honour that commitment if the Government withdrew the sports pool Bill. But no, the Minister says that he must bargain from strength. I ask You Honour whether the Minister is concerned about the Calgary games or is it the Government's fixation or obsession for getting back into the gaming business? Obviously, it really is not the success of the Calgary games that is a priority with the Government.


Donald W. Munro: It's not even at the top of
the list.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: If that were the case, the Bill would have come on earlier or the Government would have entered into some negotiation with respect to honouring the commitment. I heard the Minister say again today that, of course, Calgary knew from the very beginning that it would be funded from non-governmental revenue sources. However, when the Minister went with the Calgary organizational committee to Baden-Baden, joining in issuing the invitation to come to Calgary for the XV Winter Olympics, I wonder whether he told the International Olympic Association that Canada's funding would be limited to non-governmental revenue sources. I suggest that that was not the case.
While the games are being held in Calgary, Canada stands to absorb some of the abuse that goes with the lack of ability to adequately fund the games that Calgary wants to put on. Each month of delay makes it less likely that Calgary will be able to stage the kind of facility presented at Baden-Baden some years ago.

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
The Government continues to say that the Opposition holds up or delays these games. It has not even considered the possibility that both the Canadian Olympic Association and the Calgary Organizational Committee wanted to stage a lottery game of their own. What happened to that proposition? We are still in the position of saying that we need a sports pool to fund the Calgary Olympics. But both the Government side and this side, as well as Calgary, know that we will never fund the Calgary Olympics based on the sports pool.
At third reading of this Bill we will have a chance to expand upon the various reasons why the Bill should not pass through the House. All that aside, let us concern ourselves with the motion before us now.
In 1976 the federal Government proposed to enter the lottery field to meet its commitment to the Montreal Olympics and then to vacate that field. Members will recall the commitment made to vacate that field once the Montreal Olympics were completed. On that basis, this Party supported that position and voted accordingly. Therefore, we propose through this motion that the same approach be taken with respect to Calgary. We can do no less. If the Government is not prepared to honour its commitment out of tax revenues, then it must be prepared to negotiate adequate funding from one source or another. If the sports pool is the only means that can be used to fund those Calgary Olympics, let the Government make it clear and unequivocal that the proceeds from the sports pool, or whatever other lawful game it proposes under that Clause, should go to the Calgary Olympics. If it will be sold to the public as a sports pool, then let the Calgary Olympics get the benefit of that marketing process. Such is the purpose of our amendment. Calgary should be designated as the sole recipient of the sports pool proceeds. Once the games are completed the participation of Canada in the gaming business should be discontinued. Upon the completion of the Calgary Olympics, Canadians would then have the option of continuing to show interest in gaming businesses of this nature.
More particularly, Canadians would have the opportunity to participate in the funding of the Canadian Calgary Olympics. By doing so, they would participate, as they chose, in whatever amounts they chose, in the funding of those Calgary Olympics. Once more, Calgary would then be receiving exactly the same treatment that this House accorded the Montreal Olympics. In effect, if the lottery game proposed by this legislation is primarily for Calgary, since the Government said that Calgary is being hurt by the delay of this legislation, let us name Calgary and the XV Winter Olympics as the beneficiary of this legislation.
The Minister spoke in committee of the necessity of providing the people with a voluntary means of financing such events. If we are to have the benefit of a sports pool, if the game is to be promoted as a means of assisting the Olympics, then here is a clear and unequivocal way of showing how those moneys will be spent and who will receive the benefits of the
dollars spent by millions of Canadians in the purchase of lottery tickets, or participation in the unknown games which this House proposes to inflict upon Canadians. In conclusion, I support and urge the acceptance of Motion No. 3 by the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), as well as my other colleagues speak today in opposition to this particular sports pool.
This weekend, thousands of the world's best athletes from five continents will be in Edmonton to participate in one of the world's greatest amateur sports and one of the greatest spectator events, the University Games. They will be held in the constituency of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). It is a great occasion which will open on Friday, July 1, while celebrating Canada's one hundred and sixteenth birthday. At that time, Princess Diana and His Royal Highness, Prince Charles, will be at the games. Of course, this will be the twenty-second birthday of the Princess.
The reason I bring this to the attention of the House is that funding was provided under a principal agreement which was signed by the provincial Governments. It represented a great exercise in federal-provincial co-operation. In fact, it was one of the only agreements which I believe was signed in our shortlived Government.


Francis Fox: It was the great give-away.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It was not the great give-away as the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) realizes. He has that $98 million, half of which goes to him for culture.


Francis Fox: How much?


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is $98.7 million.


Francis Fox: To give away for $35 million.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Let us say close to $100 million, that the Government is getting from the Provinces in order to give it $50 million for culture and $50 million for fitness and amateur sports.


Francis Fox: Twenty-four million dollars.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is accumulated. If the Minister would like to comment let him get up and talk. I hope these minutes will not be taken from my time, after all of this disturbance here.
I mentioned the University games because they are part and parcel of the agreement. You have no idea of what the president, Ed Zemrau and Alex Fallow, chairman of the Board, and other colleagues in Edmonton had to go through in order to receive financing from the federal Government. The money was there for the purpose of the University games and the Calgary Olympics. They were the subject of the objectives and principles in the agreement which was made with the provinces. Yet they had to get down on their knees in order to get something from the Senator in the other place. I cannot
June 27, 1983

describe how badly I feel that the Government has not lived up to the agreement.
Let me bring to the attention of the House the objectives and principles for the agreement we had with the provincial Government. With respect to arts and culture, the objectives were as follows: First, to assist activities within the arts, heritage and cultural industry sectors not otherwise possible on the basis of existing resources or programs; second, to promote public access to Canadian cultural works; third, to promote public participation in arts and heritage activities; and finally, to equalize opportunities to all Canadians to share in our cultural life.
Let me describe the principles for art and culture since the Minister wants to know. They are; First, to maximize opportunities for joint federal-provincial and, where possible, municipal or private sector participation in program or project funding; second, to avoid new funding programs which would require growth in federal government personnel; third, to design programs in a way that long-term financial dependence on this source of funding is not created, but that long-term benefits are realized in the arts, heritage or cultural industries sectors; fourth, to favour programs which benefit the general public over those which relate primarily to professional, organizational or other particular interests; fifth, to ensure that all dispensements of the funds are in accordance with standard government accountability practices; and sixth, to permit a greater federal share in joint programs or projects in those regions and communities which are economically disadvantaged.
Let me tell you what happened in fitness and amateur sport. Programs and projects must be designed to encourage, promote and develop fitness, amateur sport and physical recreation in Canada. The principles are as follows:
Programs/projects must be a national or international import, including research in the areas of fitness or amateur sport or physical recreation.
Programs/projects must be easily identifiable to the general public and thus be effectively promoted or advertised.
Programs/projects must be new in nature or be expansion of existing authorized ones.
Programs/projects which receive partial federal funding should be encouraged to obtain other necessary funding from other acceptable public and/or private sources.
Programs/projects which receive funding, must not be in conflict with provincial jurisdictional programs and/or projects of similar character.
Programs/projects requiring major capital costs will not be eligible.
Programs/projects which receive funding will be subject to T.B. directives re Grants and Contributions.
Student Games for Edmonton (World Student Games).
Calgary Winter Olympics.
Next we come to the conditions as follows:
Programs/projects which conform to the above principles will be considered and evaluated against appropriate Departmental criteria for recommended funding providing the applicant(s) meet(s) one or more of the following conditions:
The applicant(s) must be one of:
(a) A national sport governing body.
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
(b)	A multi-sport co-ordinating body or agency.
(c)	A multi-sport recreation administrative organization/agency.
(d)	A world-class amateur athlete or national coach as determined by the relevant sport governing body.
(e)	A duly constituted Organizing Committee of a national or international sport or multi-sport event.
(0 A national organization or agency, or an institution or qualified researcher in the field of fitness, amateur sport, and physical recreation.
(g) A national multi-purpose association with a major emphasis in the field of fitness and physical recreation.
I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because I heard the Minister say the only thing the Government had to give the Calgary Olympics, or part of the criteria when Government representatives went to Baden-Baden, was the stamp, coin and sports pool. There was no such thing as a sports pool. There was no such thing as saying to the people at Baden-Baden that there were coins and stamps. You do not do that before a professional body, the COA or the International Olympic Association. You say that you are going to be part and parcel of one-third, one-third and one-third; the municipality, the province and the federal Government.
Two applications were made. An application was made on behalf of Vancouver and an application on behalf of Calgary. Calgary was awarded the games. It did not matter who received it. The Government is committed to one-third of the capital costs of the projects. It is wrong for the Minister to deceive this House. I do not know whether he did that intentionally, but I find that these types of things do happen.
Let me talk about this agreement we made with the provinces, and I must say it was a very good agreement. Let me tell you what we did. Part of this agreement reads:
In view of the fact that this agreement is expected to result in increased earnings for provincial lotteries:
(a) the Provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec will assume responsibility for any Government of Canada share estimated to be $13.5 million of the costs relating to the expansion, upgrading and renovation of the NHL arenas in Edmonton, Winnipeg and Quebec City.
The Minister under the Government previous to ours was Iona Campagnola, who went ahead and financed professional sport. We had to try to negotiate ourselves out of that deal. We did so. Another part of this agreement reads:
The Province of Ontario agrees not to request financial assistance from the Government of Canada in respect of the Royal Ontario Museum.
The Province of Alberta also looked after the Olds disaster fund in the amount of $2 million. The Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) helped negotiate that deal when we were in government. The Olds arena was burned down. We went ahead and had Alberta fund that $2 million.
There is another portion of this agreement which I think I should bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker. It reads:
On or before October 1, 1979, the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec will each remit the sum of $2,595,675.85 owed to Loto Canada Inc. under the Loto Select memorandum of understanding dated October 5, 1978.
The former Minister, Iona Campagnola, who represented the riding of Skeena, was a great Minister, but she went ahead and got herself into Loto Select, the same thing as Hockey Select and the same thing as the sports pool. We had to get her

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
out of it. 1 will have more to say on these things, there is so much to say about them.
The only thing concrete about the whole affair is that there is a possibility of deceit in this Minister that I dislike. I hope other Members will bring that to the foreground. I agree with my colleague, the Eton. Member for St. Catharines, and I will vote for his amendment.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, of particular note this evening is the fact that the Elon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party has moved a significant amendment, yet we have not yet heard from the Government side. At one point three Ministers of the Crown were present in the House. We have had no indication from the Government whether or not it supports this amendment. I suspect-

-Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is a party of silent Members, as usual.

The Minister who introduced this Bill in the House has travelled to the City of Calgary and to other communities across this country. He has spoken on radio, he has given newspaper and television interviews and he has said that the Progressive Conservative Party is blocking this piece of legislation, that we are filibustering it and will not let the Bill pass. He has said "Isn't it a shame because the Bill needs to pass if there is to be funding for the Calgary Olympics?" That is what the Minister has said. The truth-telling Minister has said that we must pass this Bill in order to have funding for the Calgary Olympics.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Easy on the word "truth".


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Easy on the word "truth"? It is a word the Minister uses to describe himself and it is one that I would not use in a million years. When a Minister says that this piece of legislation must pass this House in order to provide funding for the Calgary Olympics it behooves every voter to read the Bill. If you read it carefully, Mr. Speaker, you will notice there is not a word guaranteeing that a penny raised will go to the Calgary Olympics. There is absolutely no requirement in this piece of legislation that a penny, a dime or a dollar, will go the Calgary Olympics. When a Minister goes to public meetings and to the media and says that we have to pass this Bill in order to provide money, you would think that an honest Minister would put into the piece of legislation the simple fact that if money is raised-and there seems to be some doubt whether money can be raised through this mechanism-it will go to the Calgary Olympics.
I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for St. Catharines. He has moved an amendment, the one we are debating now, that will guarantee that if money is raised it will go to the Calgary Olympics. If the Minister, the Cabinet, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal Party of Canada are telling Canadians the truth, that this piece of legislation is to provide money for the Calgary Olympics, then they should signal the fact in the House of Commons that they intend to vote for the amendment. They cannot have it both ways. They
cannot tell Canadians that they need it for funding and then refuse to include in the legislation that the funding will be used for the Calgary Olympics. If the Liberals rise in the House and vote against Motion No. 3, they will be clearly branded for the Canadian voters as liars. To vote against this amendment and to stand up and say the measure is necessary for the Olympics is to brand oneself in each and every individual case as a liar, because there is nothing in the legislation to indicate that one dime has to go to the Calgary Olympics.
The legislation indicates that the money, if it is raised, could be used for arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport and for medical and health research. The only item missing in that list of activities for an advertising manager who wants to promote the sale of lotteries is something to do with children. It is a peculiar list of human activities for which the profits of this fund are to be used. It is an advertisement agency dream, because who can be against arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport or, more important, medical and health research?
The Liberals are making a public statement about their personal morality and about their concept of Canadian society, that funding for these activities shall be chancy and depend upon the willingness of Canadians to bet. What a different statement we would have if the Liberal party of Canada said it wanted a sports lottery and the funding would go to drill oil wells, to put buoys in the ocean, to build a frigate or to build an atomic bomb. No, the Liberals say that those things will get their funding. Petro-Canada will get $400 million to drill oil wells but medical research will depend upon Canadians who want to bet and take a chance. In other words, they will fund medical research, arts and culture, and fitness and amateur sport from the back pockets of the poorest segment of Canadian society. Those things will be subject to the hazards of the willingness of Canadians to bet at any given point in time.
But they want to drill oil wells in the Arctic and to give the President of Petro-Canada his private jet to fly weekly back and forth to Calgary. They will ensure that that funding is secure; they put it in the budget and they have it for spending. But when it comes to an international commitment to amateur sport around the world, it will depend upon the willingness of the poorest segment of Canadian society to bet. If we want increased medical research, it will also depend upon the poorest segment of Canadian society.
The Government's morality and priorities are upside down. The reason for the list of activities in the Bill is to sell tickets, to encourage Canadians to bet. I would not be surprised after this speech to see a Liberal rise and suggest that some kind of charity for children be added to the list because that would help sell even more tickets. The purpose of the list is to sell tickets.
I would like to suggest one more test of the sincerity of the commitment of the Liberal Government. When this Bill is
June 27, 1983

pushed through the House, it will create jobs. There will be people needed to sell the lottery tickets. There are two million unemployed Canadians out there, some of whom are watching the House of Commons this evening. I suggest to every one of them that they write to the Prime Minister and say, "I want a job selling lottery tickets". They could go one step further. If they do not obtain the jobs, they could ask the Prime Minister for a list of those who got the jobs and ask him to put a little asterisk beside the ones who were on unemployment insurance or who were unemployed. 1 bet there will not be many asterisks, that those jobs will not go to unemployed Canadians. They could ask him to put two asterisks opposite the names of those who donated money to the Liberal Party in the last year, and I bet there would be quite a few of those asterisks.
We are not dealing tonight with a piece of legislation that makes any sense in relation to funding the Olympics. We have the experience of the Province of Quebec trying a similar idea which is going bankrupt. It will not make money, it will not get the job done. It leaves volunteers in the City of Calgary, people who are donating their time and effort to the success of this endeavour, on the horns of a dilemma. Because there is no guaranteed funding, they cannot plan.
The reputation of Canada is at stake in the international community. Our Party has made a firm commitment. If we were the government, and when we become the government we will write a cheque to the Calgary Olympic Authority and give it the money it needs to protect Canada's reputation in the international community. That is our promise, that is our commitment. It has been clear and it has been consistent.
I urge some free-thinking Members of the Liberal Party of Canada when the vote comes to be absent from the House or to have the courage to rise and vote against it. I encourage them to take their lead from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) who stated in committee that she despised lotteries. We do not need one. We do not want one. We should keep our commitment to the Calgary Olympics, but we should get rid of this piece of legislation and move on to something else.
[ Translation]


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he is prepared to accept questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I ought to interrupt the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), but-

Apparently he seeks the unanimous consent of the House to pose a question to the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), but it has to be sought before he proceeds. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to ask a question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted at the Hon. Member's speech.
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
This is the party which in 1979 abolished Loto Canada and assistance to amateur sport. I remember quite clearly that universities and provinces and many people involved in amateur sport in this country protested against this action, and the the Hon. Member, who was the Minister responsible for Sports at the time, received requests from a great many people in this country. People asked him to make sure that amateur sport would be protected. Since the Hon. Member had been involved in professional sports, he said that Canadians themselves would take care of that and that people across the country in the private sector would be able to help amateur sport. This plan was bound to fail. And now the Hon. Member is saying that the Liberal Party is responsible for the lack of funds for the Calgary Games. That is simply ridiculous. If there is one party in Canada that is responsible for having practically done away with amateur sport in this country, it is the Hon. Member's party, which did not bother to protect Loto Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order please. The Hon. Member asked for unanimous consent in order to ask a question. I have yet to hear the Hon. Member's question.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to know whether the Hon. Member consulted Canadian universities about the cuts that were made when his party was in power, and second, because I also happen to know very well the people who are organizing the Calgary Olympics, I would like to know-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order please. One at a time.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it may interest the Hon. Member to know that I was a member of the academic community in the university for some considerable period of time prior to my election, and I stay in touch with those organizations on quite a regular basis. 1 am fully aware of the negative impact on those institutions of the recent budget cuts by successive Ministers of Finance in terms of transfer payments. They are in fact very, very difficult for the university to deal with and absorb.
In my previous incarnation as an academic, I taught the issue of policy making and policy development. One of the fundamental principles of that is that any group, organization or Government is forced to make choices. It is not always possible to do all things. I point out to the Hon. Member that in two Crown corporations, Petro-Canada and Canadair, the Government has chosen to spend $2,400 million in the last 12 months in subsidies. The Olympic bill would be $200 million spread over eight years. That is $2,400 million of choice which the Cabinet has made essentially because the backbenchers in that Party have not held the Cabinet accountable to make decent public policy choices.

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will have more questions like that coming from the other side. I might suggest that the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) stand up and participate in the debate. He likes to stand up and make speeches; why does he not participate in the debate? There has not been one Grit who has had enough nerve to get on his feet during this debate today. It has been a shameful display today by the Liberal Party.
I rise to speak to Motion No. 3, an amendment by my colleague from St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), to restrict the sports pool or numbers racket to provide funding for the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics. I support that amendment.
Earlier today I spoke about the money paid out to the Grits already in trying to set up this sports pool. Martin O'Connell, a former Member of Parliament, received $3,102 to define financing and accounting systems. Goldfarb received $16,000 to do research. An outfit by the name of Howard & Associates received $297,687 to do a number of things. Somebody by the name of Dr. Schwartz-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am not going to draw the Hon. Member's attention to the issue of relevance. It is my view that he can continue in the vein in *which he is now proceeding. However, I must remind the Hon. Member that the precedents of the House indicate that an Hon. Member cannot make the same speech twice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I know how much it hurts the Government to hear these things repeated to them. Therefore, I will continue with-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It is irrelevant to the Chair whether it hurts the Government or does not. The rules are that the Hon. Member cannot make the same speech twice in a row.


John Horton McDermid: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, if you read the blues you will find that is is not the same speech.
I want to read a press release which the Minister issued when he was discussing this Bill, to show the Canadian people how misleading he has been in presenting it. It is dated March 18, 1982. I quote:
By introducing the legislation now, Mr. Regan expressed the desire to see the Bill passed as expeditiously as possible, so that the new corporation can be established quickly and the sports pool game finalized and in operation. The Calgary Olympics will be given substantial financial support from Sports Pools revenues and it is important that funds become available soon so that the planning and preparation of facilities can begin.
That may not be the most misleading statement coming from that Minister, but it is one of the most misleading.
The planning and preparation of the facilities by the people in Calgary has been going on for a very long time. For the Minister to try and convince the people of Canada that the Olympics depends on the success of this sports pool or numbers racket is absolutely foolhardy. I can show that the moneys to
be received from this numbers racket, if it ever gets into place, will not be there for the Olympics. Let us look at where the money will go. The Minister is afraid to be specific. He thinks that Calgary will receive approximately 40 per cent of the net proceeds. He says that the net proceeds in one year will be about $100 million.
I want to go back to Loto Canada. In 1977-78 and 1978-79, the two full years it was in operation, lotteries were at their heyday. There was very little competition like there is today. In 1977-78, the net return to Loto Canada was $74,300,000. the following year 1978-79, it dropped dramatically to $62,471,000. At that time there was very little competition for lotteries, sports pools, or whatever you call them. It was going down rapidly when Loto Canada was put out of business, and rightly so.
Let us talk about the costs of those two years and the type of spending which the Government did on those lotteries. In 1977-78 they spent $10,400,000 on advertising and in 1978-79, $13 million. Ticket printing in 1977-78 was $3 million. It went to $8 million in 1978-79. Sales promotion went from $5 million to $7 million in one year. Public relations went from $322,000 in 1977-78 to $1,436,759 the following year. What did public relations take into account? I can see the staff giggling up there, but I want to tell Hon. Members that Loto Canada had a permanent hotel suite in the Four Seasons, outfitted with the finest of booze, food and entertainment all the time. The Chairman of Loto Canada had his own limousine and driver- nothing to it. That is where the money was being spent. That is why expenditures went from $322,000 to $1.4 million in one year.
Office supplies doubled in one year, $317,000 to $722,000. Furniture almost doubled from $250,000 to $402,000 in one year. Expenditures were phenomenal. This is why people do not want to see these great corporations, Crown corporations, established by this Government. They waste money, even though it is money raised by gambling, it is atrocious.
In our Motion No. 3 we say that we want the money to be slated for one purpose and one purpose only. If the Government is going to bring in this ill-conceived method of funding the Olympics as well as all the other things listed, then heaven knows where the money will go. We say it should be for the Olympics and the Olympics only. It should not be open-ended. There is no sunset clause and no real accounting to the Canadian people of what is going on. Some of the mess created in Loto Canada is now just coming to the fore, a mess created when it was being run by the Government that was then in power.
Let us take a hard look at Bill C-95, in particular where it says who will be the beneficiaries of this sports pool. It says there will be worthy capital projects in the area of fitness and amateur sports or arts and culture. Does that mean that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) will take money from this lottery to build a dome stadium in Toronto, for example? Is that what it says? It does not even define it clearly in the Act.
June 27, 1983

I does not set out in any way, shape or form what proportions the beneficiaries are to receive from the pool.
The Minister says that 40 per cent of the profit might, and I repeat might, go to the Olympics. He will never raise the $200 million that is needed to meet the commitment to the Olympics with 40 per cent of the net proceeds because I think he will find that this particular numbers racket game he is trying to put together will not in fact succeed. I do not think he will sell that many tickets.
The lack of a fixed distribution formula lends itself to a state of uncertainty. Fitness and Amateur Sport will not know how much money it is to get from year to year. There will be no way for it to budget or to make long-range plans or to set up a four year training period to lead to the Olympics games when it does not know what its funding will be.


Steve Eugene Paproski: 40 per cent of nothing is nothing.


John Horton McDermid: As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), has said, 40 per cent of nothing is nothing.
The number of beneficiaries of the lottery is far too large. They are spread out all over the place. I do not think there will be enough money from the lottery for anybody, let alone for the Olympics.
If the Government is determined to ram this thing through and to bring this to the Canadian people then, Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest that it be used for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to come to a termination in 1988, or whenever the debt is paid off for the 1988 Winter Olympics, so that we can be assured that Canada will put on its best face in 1988 for those Winter games.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, here we are at 9:30 p.m. on Monday, June 27, 1983.


An Hon. Member:: It is 9:32.


Donald W. Munro: All right, 9:32 p.m. I must ask myself, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here tonight discussing this particular Bill when, four days from now, we should be celebrating Dominion Day and getting back to our ridings-


Some Hon. Members:: Canada Day.


Donald W. Munro: I insist, we shall be celebrating Dominion Day four days hence and I do not see the urgency of this particular Bill. I do not see why we are sitting here. I am baffled, Mr. Speaker. I just do not understand because, as mentioned by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), the Bill was first introduced on March 18, 1982 with all sorts of fanfare and all sorts of requirements to be passed right then because of the money that will be needed. That was on March 18, 1982, Mr. Speaker. Then it was passed through second reading, and the
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
amended Bill we have before us now was passed through committee and reported on December 22, nine months later.
Now, another seven months later, Mr. Speaker, we are here, having been in session today since 11 o'clock this morning, discussing a Bill which is an abomination.
But aside from that, it is not an urgent Bill. We are trying to improve it and make sure, by the amendment we are discussing tonight, that this Bill will be designed to help the Winter Olympics and that is all, nothing more. We are trying to ensure that this Bill will enable the Government to honour the commitment it made in 1977-78 when Government Members entered a field which was not properly theirs to enter in the first place in order to finance the Olympics in Montreal. At that time, they made a solemn undertaking by saying: "This is a once and for all deal. We will get out of lotteries once the Montreal Olympics have been refunded. This is an invasion of provincial jurisdiction and we recognize that, but for this particular purpose, the Montreal Olympics, we will get into it this time, and as soon as that has been cleared away we will get out of it and we will stay out of it." Now they are trying to get into it again.
Government Members are trying to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter of urgency when, 15 months ago, they introduced the Bill and we are just now coming to report stage of debate. 1 do not know where they get their notions of urgency and importance and priorities. It staggers the imagination.
Here we are on the 539th sitting day of this first session of the thirty-second Parliament discussing a Bill which we ought not to be discussing at all because, unless the constitutional proposals which were brought forward in 1980-81 changed the distribution of powers, we are once again invading a provincial field of jurisdiction. But here we are at this stage in the life of this particular session of the thirty-second Parliament dealing with a matter of relative inconsequence. I cannot understand why we are doing it, but here we are.
This Bill is in many ways a repudiation in legislation form, Mr. Speaker, of an undertaking made by the Government when the Montreal Olympics funding exercise was terminated, as was explained by the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski). Why the Government decides to undercut a contract which was concluded between the federal and provincial-


Mr. Dubois:: Contract? It is a giveaway.


Donald W. Munro: 1 use the word "contract" and I mean it. If Liberal Members do not know what a contract is, it is quite obvious where they have been driving the country. They do not know about contracts. They do not even honour their own word. That is the sort of Government we have been putting up with for so long.
The Bill is 15 months old. It was introduced on March 18, 1982, went through committee and was reported back to the House on December 22. Here we are on the 539th day of the sitting dealing with this particular Bill at report stage.

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
The Bill is offensive to me for another reason, Mr. Speaker. We are creating another Crown corporation. I do not know how many Crown corporations this makes now. I am sure that no one from the Liberal side of the House could tell me how many corporations this will make because Crown corporations have been-


John Horton McDermid: That makes 424.


Donald W. Munro: They have probably spawned some more overnight that the Hon. Member did not know about. These Crown corporations have a habit of spawning overnight.
I would like to read a few comments made by an authority on Crown corporations, and this is what he had to say only a few months ago:
The sheer number of corporations which must report to the government has grown to the point where the relevant government departments to which they report are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with this aspect of their responsibilities. This is due to the fact that departments are structured, and properly so, around the requirements for the performance of their primary policy and regulatory functions. Departments are not structured to provide the kind of institutional environment required for performance of the role of shareholder of a commercial company-
-as are Crown corporations. He was not thinking of this particular Crown corporation as he had no idea that it was coming into existence. He goes on:
But the system is now becoming unwieldy and needs, I would contend, even more drastic changes than those which have been contemplated to date.
He goes on:
-despite the measure now in place or contemplated for more effective control of budgets, programmes and financing, there is as yet no actual process of reviewing all government commercial investments on a basis that applies the kind of criteria which private investors would apply.
I think it might be very revealing if I were to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those words are taken from the notes for a speech delivered by Mr. Maurice Strong, one of the greatest advocates of Crown corporations. We do not know how to deal with Crown corporations or how to make them responsible. When we look in the Bill for provisions governing their responsiveness to Parliament, we see that Mr. Strong was quite right.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide the Government with a way out of a situation in which it ought not to have found itself in the first place. Motion No. 3 would make the lottery a one-shot operation instead of giving this or any other Government carte blanche to conduct pools in perpetuity, be they "Can-Pool" or "PoolCan" or "TroughCan"-and I think that is probably the best name. The amendment would provide the Government with the opportunity to honour the commitment it made in 1976 to vacate the lottery field once the Montreal Olympics had been properly financed.
Unless there have been some changes in the constitutional proposals-and I rely on my colleague the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) to put me straight on this but I do not think there were changes that gave the federal Government permission to enter this field of normal provincial jurisdiction-I feel that this Bill ought to be ruled out of order by the
Chair. It is improperly drafted, and it does not belong in this Chamber but would be more properly discussed in provincial legislatures.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the amendment. I have said previously, and I repeat, that I oppose gaming and gambling. Therefore, to some degree, this amendment put forward for a very specific purpose by my colleague the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), has limited appeal to me. I should like to give my reasons for this.
The reason the Hon. Member for St. Catharines put the amendment forward was specifically to try to hold the government to its word; that is, that the Bill restrict itself to the Calgary Olympics, despite the fact that this Party believes a commitment was made by the Government to the Canadian Olympic Association, and through that Association to the International Olympic Committee, and that those obligations should be honoured.
The amendment puts the Government to the test of its word, that the lottery is specifically for the Olympics in Calgary and that is why the Government needs the Bill. When the House divides on the question it will be interesting to see whether the Government backs up the words it used in the House and in committee, as well as in press releases.
I am lukewarm at best to the amendment because of the promises made by the Government at the time of the Montreal Olympics. When I became a Member of this House, the first committee I was assigned to was Miscellaneous Estimates and the first Bill that committee was seized of was related to the sports loto, the stamp program and the coin program. 1 remember sitting on that committee, not until a quarter to ten or eleven o'clock, but until well past midnight. The Government used its majority to keep the committee sitting, claiming that if the Bill was not passed that night the Montreal Olympics could not go forward.
First of all the Government promised that the Olympics would be self-supporting. It said that these programs would take care of every obligation it had to the Montreal Olympics. Second, it said that the Olympics would be everyman's Olympics, they would be fun, they would be first class and they would be frugal.
In the history of the Olympic games has there ever been more waste than at Montreal, Mr. Speaker? In fact, I went to a concrete contractor in my riding and told him the price of concrete delivered to the Olympic site. I asked if he could deliver from my constituency in Manitoba to Montreal. He said that he could and make a profit; the only problem was that he might not get the truck back.
Those were the promises and that was the action, Mr. Speaker, but that is not the end of the story. Some Members of the committee went to the Olympic site. We went to City Hall, we met with the mayor and we confirmed what all Canadians know about the Olympics, that the Olympics in Montreal could no more have a deficit than what-than the mayor could
June 27, 1983

have a baby! Mr. Speaker, this has to be the longest gestation period in the history of mankind.
The Government, its spokesmen and all those who supported the Olympics knew that the financing was not going to be available and they had to hoodwink the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee and other Canadians who wanted the Olympics but wanted an accounting. That same hoodwinking is taking place in this House tonight. I say to Hon. Members opposite that they have cried wolf once too often. We simply do not believe them now.
That is still not the end of the story, Mr. Speaker. What has happened since the Montreal Olympics? What about the court cases? What about the lining of pockets? What about the convictions? That is the legacy. How is it that the Government did not tell us about those things?
While this amendment is put forward with the best of intentions-and I respect that-I am a Member who just does not believe that the pool is going to give the people of Calgary and the volunteers the financial commitment that the Government made in the first place.
While I might be a strong critic of the Government in the Province of Manitoba, I acknowledge that it has done one thing well-it has brought to light what the lotteries are costing Manitobans. There is a commission on lotteries and they call it the $100 million gamble. The Province has just over one million people. The closest thing to the sports pool is the Calcutta we have in Manitoba. That is why I say I do not believe this program will provide the funding. I will use the Calcuttas in Manitoba as an example and the numbers can be extrapolated for Canada.
The Calcuttas or betting pools on sports events were licensed by 77 organizations, according to an article in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 27, 1982. Those organizations raised $209,000 on those 77 licensed events. The expenses were a measly $6,133. Would you like to know what the profits were from that pool? Keeping in mind that we are looking at a $100 million business in Manitoba, the profits as listed by the organizers of those 77 events totalled $26,000. If one starts looking at this numbers racket we are talking about today, and one starts taking a look at the money spent and the profits received, one can only feel the greatest sympathy for the organizers of the Olympics in Calgary. Those people deserve better, Mr. Speaker. They deserve that this Government keep its word.
My colleague from Edmonton, Mr. Speaker, mentioned that this Government had been involved in the earlier sports gaming business and had also supported professional sports. Where is the thanks from the National Hockey League? What thanks have the people of Saskatchewan, specifically the people of Saskatoon, received in the last months from the beneficiaries of this Government largesse? The people of Saskatchewan were willing to put up an arena, they bought tickets, they produced some of the best hockey players in the world. They said, "Give us a chance. Give us a franchise. We
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
are willing to pay for it at market value." The answer was, "Oh, no". That is the thanks, Mr. Speaker. I do not trust the word of this Government when it talks about the profits which are going to come from the sports pool. Therefore, the bottom line is not the profits, but whether the federal Government should be in the gaming business, and the answer is still no.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat reluctant to enter into the debate on this-what is it called, anyway? I think of it as a lottery. 1 know it is called a sports pool. I also know we have tried to cover up the fact that it is a lottery by naming it something else, a "sports pool", trying to infer that there is an element of skill attached to this. In reality, the sports pool is nothing more or less than a chance for the majority of Canadians to contribute and lose their money so that a few can benefit. It is a lottery. It is a gamble. My upbringing tells me that gambling is anti-social. 1 was brought up to believe that 1 do not get something for nothing. My convictions were molded by the type of home environment in which 1 was raised. My parents taught me simply that gambling was wrong, that there were winners at the expense of losers.


Mr. Rossi:: That is why you are a loser; you are a Tory.


An Hon. Member:: Get into the debate, then.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, keep quiet.


Frederick John King: Does that gentleman have the floor, Mr. Speaker, or do I?
I was taught that winners won at the expense of those who lost, that happiness for one was at the cost of disappointment for others, that rewards were ony worthy which were earned, and that work and effort were the instruments through which one achieved both satisfaction and personal advantages. My friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), told us about what the Scriptures had to say, the basic moral teachings of the Scriptures, from which we as a society are removing ourselves, pushed ever by a Government which seems to be insensitive to any element of morality.
1 have the conviction, Mr. Speaker, that the nation and Canadian society would be better for the observance of the basic philosophy that it is work and productivity which is the basis of wealth and happiness, and that nothing comes along which is of value to either us or society that does not cost us anything. I certainly believe that the Government of Canada should fulfill its obligation to Calgary in sharing the cost of the Olympic facilities. The question is simply how to accomplish this. I support the opposition voiced by this side of the House against financing this national obligation through the implementation of a form of national lottery.
Many arguments, substantive in nature, have been raised, and which should, in ordinary circumstances, carry enough weight to reverse the actions proposed by this Government. One of the arguments frequently raised is that this, indeed, becomes a form of tax upon the poor because it is the poor who are the most attracted to the purchase of lottery tickets and

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
the chance to win $1 million or $100,000, or whatever it is. That has a special appeal for those who can least afford it. Several examples have been given today of instances where it has meant hardship and loss to families caught up on this kind of desire to gain instant wealth and prosperity. It has been pointed out, of course, that those who profit, do so at the expense of others.
I spent most of today travelling across Canada. Thursday night, while travelling home to beautiful British Columbia, I saw a most spectacular sight over the prairie Provinces, a sight which I have never seen before. We were flying just a few hundred feet above a cloud blanket which spread from horizon to horizon when an electrical storm developed. The clouds below were spectacularly lit up by discharges of electricity all across the sky. This went on for most of an hour. Those of us who had our eyes glued to the windows of the plane watching this spectacularly beautiful sight, little knew that below us that storm would bring tragedy and destruction to cities and people. It was only the next day that we read about some of those tragedies, about the lad in Edmonton who was swept away while in the street in front of his home and whose body has not yet been found; about the young woman who drowned in her car which was stalled in the middle of a street in Saskatoon. Therefore, what was so delightful and spectacularly beautiful to some of us who were above the storm evoked just the opposite reaction from those involved on the ground.
I suppose that is a simple demonstration of the principle that has been expounded over on this side of the House, that lotteries are beautiful to some and damaging to others. As such, I think they are incompatible with the spirit of Canada and should not be used by the Government of Canada as a form of taxation for any purpose, no matter how honourable or delightful the purpose.
We live in a unique country. We in Canada have a diversity that is part of our strength and our heritage and leads us to cherish our country beyond any other. There is a diversity in Canada in attitudes, the same as there is in typography. It is important that actions by the national Government of Canada do not abuse or offend large segments of society. This should be avoided if possible. I believe that a lottery for whatever purpose, under legislation provided by the Government of Canada, offends a great many Canadians.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I did speak on the measure once this evening, but we are now considering a further amendment and I have a few observations in connection with it. First, the Government's claim has been that the Bill must be passed in order to facilitate the holding of the Calgary games. The inference is that without the support of the Bill, the games are in jeopardy. However, I would submit that everyone knows that that is not true. The same serious argument was used by the Government in forcing the Crow Bill through the House. In its argumentation it stated that if the transportation system was to be upgraded, the statutory Crow rate had to go because, through the change that it was proposing, the money would be forthcoming to
assist the railway companies in upgrading and providing a better transportation system for Canada. I think everyone knows that that was not true. Everyone was in favour of the upgrading of our transportation system.
We think back to the days when a certain Minister of Transport said that the transportation system was a mess. The same could be said today because we remember the attempts of the railway companies to discourage passenger travel by making it almost impossible to make connections at various out of the way points and by using other techniques as well. We are still facing a situation in which the transportation system is inadequate to fulfill the purpose for which it was originally set in place. However, I would suggest that there are other options open to the transportation system than the method and the route that the Government was following in trying to destroy the statutory freight rates.
We are faced with the same situation again involving a very laudable project namely, the Calgary Olympics. I do not suppose anyone objects to the holding of the Calgary Olympics. I would say that it is a possibility that the greatest percentage of the people of Canada think it is a good idea, even though they may not be sports-minded. They say it is a good idea to encourage our athletes to participate in competition with those from other countries, and they would like to see it go ahead. However, now I say that the Government in implying that unless this particular measure goes through and the sports pool is set up, those games are in jeopardy. However, we all know, in and around this place, that if the Government wants to do something, it gets some money somewhere. If it wants to prop up an ailing industry, and many times some of its own followers can help it out in a tought spot, it can get the money all right. It can go and borrow and does not mind doing it at all. Yet if we are to have the Olympics, it says that we cannot do it that way. It says that we must put in a sports pool and get the money out of those people who are poor and hard up yet desperate to make a dollar in order to better their economic condition and so they will take a chance on buying tickets.
The Government is hypocritical in its attitude, in its proclamations, in its announcements, because it knows very well that there are other avenues that it can tap in order to ensure the holding of the Calgary Olympics. It can do so without forcing the Bill through the House as it is endeavouring to do at the present time.
There has been a question raised as to whether it is a lottery or a sports pool, or just what it is. However, we all know that it is just a gambling device. I would like to draw attention to the following statement. It was the concluding words of the joint Parliamentary Committee on Capital Punishment and Lotteries in the report which was made on July 31, 1956. It concluded with a very interesting statement:
That no useful purpose could be achieved by the institution of state lottery in Canada. It considered that the proper role of the state is to control and regulate such gambling activity as is permitted to private citizens by the general law, and
June 27, 1983

that it is not appropriate for the state to provide facilities for gambling to the public. The committee includes, in the prohibition of state lotteries in Canada, those which might be operated by provincial and municipal Governments as well as the federal Government.
We see that the joint committee that was studying this particular activity as well as others, came to the conclusion that this was no place for the federal Government to move in and establish a national gambling facility in order to try to finance operations.
This particular amendment with which we are dealing now concerns the activities in the following fields: the arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport, medical health and research, the Winter Olympic games to be held in Calgary, and worthy capital projects of national interest in fields described in other paragraphs.
As we look at this particular matter, the Government is arguing against itself when it says that the Olympics will not take place unless this is set up. However, it has listed the Olympics as number four in its priority projects that could expect funding from this particular facility.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise again this evening with respect to Motion No. 3 which is an attempt to delete a part of this statute that amounts to nothing more than sheer blackmail in the very worst form that could ever be found in the deepest and darkest dens and sin holes of the world. But that is the nature of the Bill.
We have heard the very excellent debate throughout tonight and on earlier days. Interestingly enough, the speeches came only from this Party. Where are the Government backbenchers who privately told us that they do not like the concept of this Bill? They are not speaking because the Cabinet has decreed from on high that this Bill is going through and that those backbenchers should toe the line for they will not get their pay-off or an election will be called and they will lose their seats because the Cabinet has so destroyed the Party and the country. In fact, they would be of great benefit to of all of mankind if they were to bring this Cabinet down and let democracy prevail.
This Bill will never get through because we will stand up again and again. This session will go on for ten more years before this Bill passes.
The points have been made. This Bill makes gambling by the Government legal, yet if I were to go to someone's home to gamble, that would be illegal. The Criminal Code, to which we have all agreed, has said that gaming and betting houses are illegal and not an action which we should encourage in our society. This Bill says in blatant words that if the Government does this, it shall be legal. What kind of an Act is that? As my colleague says, we all know of people who have been charged for running gaming houses. They have gone to jail and paid the penalty, with the entire blight on their career that this has meant. Yet the Government said that it can run these same type of gaming houses and operations legally. That is not how our society works.
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
We have also heard great argument on the method of raising money. We have heard it said that what this Bill proposes is simply and intrinsically bad and immoral, let alone regressive and that it will impact upon the poor in the country far more than on those of us who are wealthy. This Bill is certainly morally debilitating.
We have heard the argument of Crown corporations. Do we really need another Crown corporation in this country with its president, vice-presidents and directors, all of whom will be paid enormous salaries and all of them appointed by that gang across there? The proof of the pudding is in the eating and Canadians have eaten some rather sour pudding, all at enormous cost.
The point is that we know that these Crown corporations never fail. It is a matter of statistics that if 100 private firms are established, at least 40 per cent or 50 per cent of them will fail just because of bad management or under-capitalization. Not one Crown corporation in 15 years has failed, with the result that we now have over 300 Crown corporations. When one looks at their subsidiary corporations and sub-subsidiaries, they become totally unaccountable to us, the people.
When these Crown corporations face difficulties, the taxpayers of the nation simply have to kick in more money, which means that there is less disposable income in the pockets of ordinary, honest hard-working Canadians. They are the Canadians who are getting black lung disease in our coals mines, the farmers who are losing arms and legs in machinery and others who pay the supreme price in order to survive and look after themselves. Yet the Government is taxing it away and other people are deciding how it will be spent.
Motion No. 3 relates to Clause 18. Clause 18(3) states:
There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to or for the support of any one or more of
(a)	activities in the following fields:
(i)	the arts and culture,
(ii)	fitness and amateur sport, and
(iii)	medical and health research-
The point has to be made that the statute does not set out a set formula for the distribution of these funds. Again, that is wrong because it means that the Cabinet will be able to choose who gets what each year and how much. This simply reflects the system that the Cabinet has tried to implement in a dozen other areas by making people come to the Government to get grants. It says that if people do the right thing and support the Liberal Party, show up in large numbers when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others travel through their towns, they will receive a grant. However, if the other group wants to stand on its own two feet independently, it will not get any Government largesse. That is wrong in principle. Nobody should have that kind of power over any other human being. Yet that is the kind of power that the Liberal Cabinet and Liberal backbenchers permit the Cabinet to have over and over again in our society.
Clause 18(3)(b) states that one of the recipients of the money will be:
-the XV Winter Olympic games to be held at Calgary, Alberta.

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
This clause proves the point exactly. The Government has gone out to the organizers and officials of those fifteenth Olympics which are not to be held until 1988 and has them upset over the fact that they will not get their money. Does that not just prove the point that the Cabinet will use that leverage and blackmail to get the people to pressure others to do things that are not correct legally, morally or by any other test? Therefore, the Cabinet is in fact capable of blackmail. That is what is happening with this Bill tonight, and I will not vote for it. The Government will simply not get it through.
In fact, the money for the fifteenth Winter Olympics was promised by the Government and it has no right to tie that Calgary Olympic money to a gaming lottery that is illegal for everyone in society except the Government.


An Hon. Member:: Are you going to support the amendment or not?


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Government should stand up as an honest and decent Government to say that Calgary will get the Olympic support. We, as Canadians, all pay tax dollars and we are prepared to have that money allocated there.


Mr. Fisher:: Will you add to the deficit?


Blaine Allen Thacker: We pay a lot of tax dollars.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Will you add to the deficit?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Every time the Government brings out a program there should be a corresponding tax so the citizens of the nation have a choice. We should have that one provision in our laws and governments that honour it.
If you remember, Mr. Speaker, in 1968 we had balanced budgets. We had a small national debt, yet we had a sound old age security system. We had guaranteed supplements, we had hospital insurance, we had post-secondary education and we had medicare. In 1968, we had all of the social programs and we still had balanced budgets. We had a small national debt. We had that because we had a productive society. Everybody was working and paying in a fair share of the taxes. The money was being redistributed. The only time we got into trouble was by following the Pied Piper. We were led down the garden path. The Government proposed programs and said, "Folks, you can keep your low capitalist tax because we are simply borrowing it." At first, only 5 per cent went to service the debt, then 15 per cent, then 20 per cent, then 25 per cent, and now over 30 per cent of every tax dollar has to service the debt. While the Government was getting us into the problem, we had enormously good programs, low capitalist tax, but the Government was borrowing the difference. Now the taxes are rising to meet the programs. People do not have the cash flow and they are dropping like flies. It is predictable. It is because they were led into a trap. We had the illusion of wealth when we did not have wealth at all. Now we are paying the penalty. Regretfully, because of the actions of that Government, because of those creeps opposite, our children and our grandchildren will have to accept a substantially reduced standard of living.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid). If this Bill has any meaning at all, I am sure we will hear from the Minister who is now in the House and we will hear from other Members on the Government side as to their feelings on this amendment.
This amendment makes specific within this Bill something which the Minister, his Cabinet colleagues and Members on the Government side have been maintaining since the inception of this Bill. This Bill is specifically, without exception we hear, to promote the fifteenth Winter Olympics to be held in Calgary. We will be pleased to see the Minister and all his colleagues on the Government side voting to support this Bill because they have been telling the people of Calgary and the people of Canada that the only rationale for Bill C-95, the sport pools Bill, is for the Olympic games to be held in Calgary.
By definition the Winter Olympics to be held in Calgary in 1988 are a special event. We have never had Winter Olympics in Canada. If this is a special Bill for a special event, the Winter Olympics, then I can accept it. But we have culture and art in this country on a daily ongoing basis. We have fitness and amateur sport on a daily, yearly, ongoing basis. We have medical health and research on a daily, yearly, ongoing basis. Why are these specifics, medical health and research, fitness and amateur sport, arts and culture, not funded the way other programs are in our country? Why are they not funded with tax dollars? Why is the Government's revenue not used in an ordinary way for things that we have in our country on a daily basis? Why would the Government attach these things that are so important to the daily lives of Canadians to something that is special, a world class event such as the Calgary Olympics?
When the Minister made his proposal to the International Olympic Committee that Calgary would host, with the assistance of the federal Government, the fifteenth Olympiad, I am sure he did not have in place the legislation for a sports pool, 1 am sure he did not have in place the legislation for the stamps, and I am sure he did not have in place the legislation in place to stamp medals and medallions. What he did say was that the federal Government, in conjunction with the Province of Alberta and the municipality of the City of Calgary, would provide the funds necessary to sponsor and look after the fifteenth Olympiad. It is the same in any small part of Canada, in my riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster, that if a community wishes to go ahead with a project, it would be expected to provide some of the funding. The Province would expect to provide some of the funding. For projects of a larger size, the federal Government would be asked to become involved.
I have not seen any record in any debates in the House of Commons that there had to be a special lottery, a sports pool, made available so the citizens in other communities in Canada could benefit from a facility that would provide daily and
June 27, 1983

yearly recreation for them after the event had passed. I find it strange, Madam Speaker, that this Government would feel it necessary to fund the Calgary Olympics in a manner different from the way it treats projects in any other part of the country.
But when you look at this paragraph where the amendment applies, it reads:
There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to or for the support of any one or more of
(a)	activities in the following fields:
(i)	the arts and culture,
(ii)	fitness and amateur sport, and
(iii)	medical and health research-
(b)	XV Winter Olympic games to be held at Calgary, Alberta, and
(c)	worthy capital projects of national interest in the fields described in subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii)-
It does not say anything about medical and health research. Apparently now that is not in the national interest. I do not quite follow that. But the real kicker, and it is underlined in the Bill, is:
-the amounts paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund pursuant to this section.
It does not say anything about the amount. There is not one word about the amount of money to be available for the Calgary Olympics or any other portion of this Bill. It says that what is paid in shall be paid out. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that the Minister, when he rises in his place to tell us how he feels about this amendment, will support specifically the Calgary Olympics and he will tell us how much money is involved, because I do not see that in the Bill. My colleagues do not see it in the Bill. But we are being told of the whole life and death struggle of the fifteenth Olympics in Calgary and we do not know how much money is going to be made available. We do not know whether it will be all the money that is needed or whether it will be one-third of it. We do not know the proportion. Nor do we know from where the shortfall will come. If the shortfall is to come from taxation, I would suggest, so as to be fair and straightforward to the people of Canada, that the taxation be put in place now, that it be specific so the people organizing the games in Calgary will know how much funding they will receive from this Bill and will not be buying a pig in a poke.
In closing let me say that if a lottery is needed for medical research, for fitness and amateur sport, for culture and for the Olympics in this country, maybe the grain producers in western Canada would like to have a lottery so they would not have to pay additional costs for the transport of their grain under the Crow change coming forth from this Government. Maybe we should have a lottery so that Ottawa, the capital of Canada, can have a decent airport. Maybe we should have a lottery for any number of things. I find it strange, Madam Speaker, that in this Bill, excluding the Calgary Olympics which are a special event, the rest of the projects are daily programs, programs which the people of Canada would be only too pleased to pay for if they felt the funding and the taxation dollars were spent wisely, and that they would not object to it. I will be voting in favour of this amendment and I am sure
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Members on the Government side, including the Minister, will be voting in favour of this amendment.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, we are discussing an important Bill this evening, Bill C-95, which is entitled:
An Act to provide for government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act.
That is quite a title. On the first page the short title reads:
This Act may be cited as the Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act.
If A1 Capone were alive, I think he would be proud of us this evening. As the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) indicated, it is the great numbers game. That is precisely what I think it is. Another colleague pointed out that if A1 Capone were here, he would have wondered why he had not thought of it.
Instead of being here this evening talking about the passage of a Bill to encourage Canadians to be productive or to give them a tax break or incentive to use the tax system to encourage production, we are here talking about making minimal use of the wealth which has already been created by the hard work of Canadians. I find this very disturbing although it is reflective of the socialist attitude when they see wealth to want to confiscate it and regulate; they do not want to do anything about encouraging its creation.
It has been pointed out that this is a regressive form of taxation. It holds itself out as a form of reward for some kind of chance at something to gain; it is a reward for investing a little money. As has already been very eloquently pointed out by Hon. Members who preceded me, how can anyone not be in favour of supporting arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport or medical and health research? I find it incredible that all these activities are tied up in this Bill.
This Bill will become law because the Government numbers will crush any opposition which we may put up or they will thwart any reasonable amendments on our part. If we are to have lotteries in the country, I think we should look at aiming the money at one specific project. On that basis I am very much in favour of the amendment which would have the money available from this gaming operation or from this numbers game to assist in financing the Calgary Winter Olympics. It would be worthwhile to do that with money, if it is to be raised in this fashion. Given the fact that the Government is intent upon having this crazy scheme in place, it would make much more sense for people to have an idea of where the money would go and how it would be spent.
I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) is present this evening. He made some comments earlier about the deficit. No one likes to see deficits. I would be much more enthusiastic about debating a Bill-and I expect the Parliamentary Secretary would agree with me-to encourage Canadians to be more productive. There are two ways of getting out of a deficit. One is by holding down expenses, and the other is by increasing productivity. Too often the Government has done nothing in terms of increasing

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
productivity; in fact it has discouraged people from being productive. This is the tragedy and the kind of thing which shows up in the very bankrupt policies of the Government.
Also I am concerned about the fact that the Government seems to have no idea about the value of money or what kind of priority it should place upon spending. For example, Cana-dair lost $ 1.4 billion in the last fiscal year. It could have been used to erect dome stadiums in 14 cities across the country. A dome stadium with 40,000 seats can be erected for approximately $100,000. This means that for the $1.4 billion which Canadair lost in one year, 14 Canadian cities could have 40,000-seat dome stadiums. When we think about the jobs that that would create and the additional economic activity that would engender, we realize that it would be a tremendous boost.
The Government is asking for additional funds for things which it really believes are legitimate. It makes me wonder where the Government's priorities are or whether it really has any. As has already been indicated, I suspect its priorities are upside down.
I have another area of concern about the Bill, that is, the possibility of abuse of the money raised on behalf of Canadians in this fashion. We have already heard some of the figures this evening. For example, in 1977-78 Loto Canada spent $273,000 on furniture. The next year it spent $402,000 on furniture. Normally when such an operation is set up, some capital expenditures are incurred in the first year and in subsequent years the figure goes down. When we see the way money has been spent in the past, money raised in a similar fashion, we really wonder where some of it goes. This again brings to mind some of the troughing that goes on. People are now accustomed to being at the trough. In my part of the country we say that they are in there with their snouts. I think the Government has set a new record. Not only is it in there with its snout; it is in there with its two front feet.
Again I say that there is no incentive for anyone to spend this money wisely because it is not one's own money that will be spent. We all know that if one is not involved in life and does not risk one's capital, it is very easy to be callous and careless with someone else's money. That is my concern with money raised in this fashion.
There are many areas with which I would like to deal, but ten minutes is a very short period of time. One must wonder whether this is the best way in which to recirculate money in the economy. There is such a thing as the multiplier effect. If the Government sat down to look at its priorities, would it believe that this is the best way to collect taxes and to redistribute them through the economy to get the best multiplier effect? It is simply a form of taxation. It is regressive taxation. It is money being taken away from people who in many cases can least afford it. I am sure it will be redistributed in such a way that it will not provide the best multiplier effect in the economy.
In terms of the odds available for people winning some of these moneys, I have heard figures quoted by mathematicians and physicists which indicate that we have about as much
chance winning some of these lotteries as we have of being struck by lightning twice. When people buy these lottery tickets, they are not thinking of those kinds of things. They are told that the money they are donating on behalf of the lottery will be used for arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport and medical and health research. These are the kinds of things which concern me when I think about where we are going and why we need this Bill in front of us in the first place.
There are many other Members who want to speak on this Bill. I could make many more comments, but in closing I urge the Government to look seriously at this amendment so that, if we are to have this kind of Bill or law, it will be limited in the damage it will do to the Canadian economy. It should be directed solely at the Calgary Olympics so that once they are over we will not have to put up with this kind of nonsense any longer.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, I find myself in a strange position because I will take a slightly different tact in connection with this amendment as well as the entire Bill. I have listened to many of my learned friends give rather brilliant speeches on the subject and, quite frankly, it is not often that I find myself in concurrence with religious elements.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: That was not meant to be funny but it is true. For example, I find absolutely nothing wrong with a bingo game in a church basement. I find nothing wrong with a friendly game of poker with six or seven people who do not play as well as I do. I think I have made other statements dealing with the sport of kings, horse racing, where of course there is a gamble. Gambling by itself does not necessarily have to be sinful, but what we are looking at here is not gambling. We are looking at confiscation and fraudulent activity. We are looking at the national Government of Canada wanting to set up another lottery and being prepared to spend, chances are- it spent $10 million in one year, $13 million in another year- $15 million anyway purely on advertising this lottery to convince the poor sucker out there that he has a chance. It will take his money and return nothing. Let us face it, only about 49 per cent goes to those who buy tickets, even with the best lotteries. Certainly it would raise some money; how much is yet to be determined. Perhaps that native shrewdness that enables the public to survive may finally wise up and realize that with the kind of odds you get in a lottery, it simply does not make sense to buy a ticket.
With the exception of Ontario, the average person in this country spends $30 a year on lotteries. They are two, three or four people in the average family. A couple spends $60 a year on lottery tickets for which they receive absolutely nothing except a dream, a dream that lasts only until the numbers are called. That $60 could be spent in any number of things such as recreation or reading. I am amazed that the motion picture
June 27, 1983

industry is not complaining bitterly about lotteries. If somebody buys a $10 lottery ticket, obviously that money is not being spent on going to the movies. It in no way contributes anything to the economy.
This Bill is another proliferation of the con game. I do not believe the national Government should be involved in a con game. Obviously Members opposite think that a good con game is a great thing. If it is not a con game to suggest that the Olympics in 1988 require this; that is utterly ridiculous.
A lot of my friends here, particularly westerners, have spoken about the Calgary Olympics. May I remind all Hon. Members that we are not talking about the Calgary Olympics. We are talking about the world Olympics being held in Canada. Those Olympics belong as much to Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes as to British Columbia, Alberta and the rest of the country.
If the national Government is not prepared to spend money to make them a success, it should be thoroughly ashamed of itself. It is using this blackmail to get another lottery scheme in place when we already have eight or nine in the country. These lotteries drain off millions and millions every year right across the country. It is a totally useless activity. One in
800,000	wins. There are 799,999, including the smaller lotteries, who lose.
The only advantage I can see in buying a lottery ticket is the dream of having a million dollars, until they draw the numbers. That is all you get. On a moral basis, is it proper to give someone that kind of dream? I always believed in the right of the individual to make a damm fool of himself if he wanted to. However, standing here as a Member of the House of Commons, a Member of this august assembly, I am not so sure I have the right to feel that way when a con game of this nature is perpetrated upon society by a Government.
I only wish that Members sitting on the Government benches would hear what is being said by any number of Members on this side. They do not listen. They have not listened to anything. They have not heard anyone over here or any of our reasons.
If they were adjudicating on the debate, if they had to sit down and determine where the truth lies, who is right and who is wrong, who has presented the better reasons on this Bill and the various amendments, they would have to come to the conclusion that in this case-it is not always true, but mostly true-the Government has to be wrong in foisting this con game on the Canadian people. There are far too many of these lotteries.
There are two or three quotations which express better than I can some of my feelings in connection with this legislation. I quote:
The present acceptance of lotteries seems to arise out of political expedience. Governments, under pressure to fund undertakings beyond the traditional expectations of the fiscal system, have resorted to the lottery instead of tax reform, and have found ready to hand a gambling medium, publicly attractive for its accessibility, simplicity and large stakes. Governments have, moreover, been able to pour millions of dollars into seductive advertising which creates the illusion of a "normar activity in which winning is also interpreted as "normal". This attitude on the part of Government is particularly destructive when
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Canadians should be challenged to give for their country rather than get for themselves.
Professor D. McCormack Smyth of York University stated:
Liberal democratic government has been based on a number of central ideas. One is that governments must respect human beings. Governments must not exploit human weaknesses. Through their promotion of lotteries governments are appealing to one of the lowest human qualities-that of greed. For one individual to win a million dollar lottery ticket, 199,999 other individuals must lose $5.
I am on the side of 199,999 rather than the one who takes the prize. In January, 1983, the Baptist Federation of Canada, the Council of Christian Reform Churches in Canada, the Salvation Army and the United Church of Canada stated in a brief:
We see gambling as that which divides rather than unites; as destructive to genuine philanthropy; as harmful to persons, communities and nations; as pandering to the debilitating desire to get something for nothing.
It is those kinds of words that I would hope those opposite could hear, believe and understand. This Bill will not do any good for our country. This Bill will bring disrespect to every Member in the House of Commons who votes for it when he or she returns home to face his voters. Again I quote:
The lotteries in Canada, with all the power of governments behind them, have already become a source of contention between Ottawa and the Provinces. They present a new and powerful form of political patronage and potential for corrupting abuses. They raise expectations among community organizations, where perhaps none should exist, with respect to assistance from the public purse. They lull politicians and the public away from the task of analysis, the setting of priorities, and the making of commitments, which are indispensable for the ordering of social life.
We have seen in this Government a tendency, a disease or a stumbling into scandal after scandal, a massive mismanagement of the economy. Canadair is one example. There are many others. Now this legislation is being proposed. If there is anything true about gambling dollars, it is easy come, easy go. The easy come from the lottery means there is a lot more money to play with, a lot more money to spend foolishly, a lot more money to spend on patronage, and a lot more money to use to the detriment of the Canadian people. For God's sake, gentleman, reconsider.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, in entering the debate this evening on Motion No. 3, I do so with the shared conviction that the beneficiary structure of the present legislation is too large and too vague. If the sports pool earns $30 million to $40 million a year, it is certainly not clear how much of that money will be divided between the Calgary Olympics, fitness and amateur sport, health and medical research, art and culture and added to that, worthy capital projects.
In the moments available to me, I want to focus some attention on groups which have been named and whose expectations have been raised with the introduction of Bill C-95. How are these groups to plan on funding when there is no clear indication of what percentage is to go to each group and when in the future and under what formula they can anticipate receiving them?
Surely the distribution pattern of the money should be determined before the money is collected, not after, unless it is

June 27, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
another illustration on the part of the Government and the Minister that there is no real perception of the importance of the voluntary sector of Canada and that it is a tool which the Minister can use. When the Minister piloting this legislation through the House was Secretary of State, he styled himself the Minister advocate for the voluntary sector. It is interesting to note that feedback from the voluntary sector indicated to its constituents across the country that the Minister had no awareness of its import to Canadian society. In this Bill, the Minister proposes a control mechanism of that sector rather than somehow allowing that sector to move in a way that his predecessor was prepared to do when calling together Consultation 81, which drew the national voluntary agencies together by saying: "We will entertain tax proposals that will give you freedom to do the things that you do best."
When we begin to look at the dimensions of this particular Bill, Madam Speaker, it would be wise for the Minister to leave the House, because at this particular point there is a constituency that looks at this and says: "There is nothing in this except more Government control of our initiative." Does that particular Government which wishes to cover the waterfront really believe that the 40,000 registered charities that took in $5.6 billion, according to the Ross Report recently tabled by the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), are somehow of so little significance that they can be played off one against the other?
For a moment, Madam Speaker, let us have the Government and its supporters opposite tell the voluntary sector why it is that instead of putting in place a tax mechanism and reviewing the Department of Revenue control mechanism for that sector, they turn their backs on the Secretary of State's proposal for a task force on voluntarism. Why is it that they will not open this up for public discussion? Instead, they say: "Give us a mechanism that will make more money and then we will give out a series of grants by which we can control an entire sector."
My colleagues have already referred to the component of patronage within this whole area, but it is not just patronage that gives me concern. My concern has to do fundamentally with an attitude. Canadians are becoming aware not only in the private sector where we have seen through FIRA, the National Energy Program and a variety of other measures the whole control mechanism, that as well in the voluntary sector there is the same question of control or trust. Will we trust the private sector to generate wealth? Will the Government trust the voluntary sector to let fitness and amateur sport bloom on its own? Will it deal with the caring health voluntary agencies? Will it give them some incentive to do their own thing? Will it deal with the caring religious community and give it the same incentive as it does the political community? When there are worthy capital projects that come before the public, will it in some way give some incentive to that group?
Here we have legislation which colleagues on this side have been calling regressive. They have been calling it regressive legislation and regressive taxation. In a sense the budget that was brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde)
was supposed to have put out a signal of incentive. We now have the Government turning around, with the former Minister who advocated the voluntary sector putting through the House legislation which provides the reverse of any incentive to the voluntary sector. This is yet another control mechanism. Canadians should be quite clear in knowing that we have a Government which says it will control that sector along with other sectors. It will not trust Canadians or put mechanisms in place that will allow them to do the things they want to do.
How many Canadians are we talking about? What about this sector which the Government, is by and large, prepared to ignore? The sector's wage benefit bill in 1980 was $1.7 billion which which would compensate approximately 173,000 workers, 23 per cent of those part-time. This represents 1.6 per cent of all employed workers in Canada. When looking at the sector which is being ignored and which the Government is, in a sense, prepared to penalize once again, we should note that there are three million Canadians who volunteer an estimated 373 million hours which, if compensated on an average wage for the service sector, would be worth more than $2 billion. We are not dealing with some esoteric interest group that is on the fringe of Canadian society.
The Government, the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) have had before them for nearly a decade proposals made by the national voluntary agencies which would have replaced the $100 standard deduction for medical expenses and charitable donations with a 50 per cent tax credit such as political parties now receive. This sector, had it had some incentives, could have gone on to build on its proven cost-effectiveness in job creation.
The YMCA of Canada has completed a study which shows that there is a 3:1 ratio in skills training and retraining. Here we are at a time when there is a need for training in Canada, a time for economic renewal, and we have a sector which has proven its capacity to do this. What do we do? We have a Government which brings in legislation which is yet another disincentive. When the budget was to come in, the Secretary of State said that there would be a proposal for a task force to look at taxation and charitable revenue regulations, but the whole matter was ignored. What we have seen is the removal of the $100 tax deduction, which is nothing more than a $80 million tax grab. If we need $80 million for the Calgary Olympics, why not take the $80 million that has just been saved at the expense of the voluntary sector and use that for the Calgary Olympics instead of moving into this sector?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, I would like to say that the voluntary sector is under attack. Its revenue capacity is down 35 per cent, due to the inability of Canadians to support it because of unemployment and rising inflation. The Government refuses the give and take tax proposals, refuses to review charitable donations, refuses to set up an all-departmental mechanism to bring departments together, and then has the
June 27, 1983

final effrontery to bring in a Bill that pretends to somehow support that sector. In case anybody is in doubt, Madam Speaker, I shall not be voting for this legislation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like to enter this debate, particularly in respect to Motion No. 3 proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid).
One thing that must be made very clear when considering the suggestion to have something specific with respect to the city of Calgary is that the Government really has no business getting into the field it is proposing to get into. It has been pointed out that the Government is suggesting the Canadian public should enter into a terribly unfair gamble. For example, it has been estimated that in respect to the Wintario lottery in Ontario, there is one chance in 1,400,000 of winning one of the five prizes of $100,000. The reason I point that out, as the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) has indicated, is that this is not a partisan matter, it is simply a question of the federal Government being honest with the Canadian public.
The truth is that lotteries return a mere 38 per cent to 40 per cent of the total moneys that are paid mainly by the poor of the country. Conventional betting games offer far more appealing odds if one is looking for a gamble. For example, roulette on average returns about 95 per cent of the bettor's money. Horse racing returns about 82 per cent, black jack 94 per cent and a game of dice 83 per cent to 97 per cent. One of the worst gambles you can ask anyone to go into is the type of lottery that the Government proposes. We must ask why the Government would want to be so unfair, especially with the poor of the country. Clearly it is doing this at the behest of its advertising agency friends. It is a massive pay-off because the people who make the biggest money out of this type of promotion are the advertising agencies.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: May I call it eleven o'clock, Madam Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, the injustices done to Canadians of Japanese ancestry in Canada in 1942 in the evacuation, internment and confiscation of property, it need hardly be argued today, ought never to have happened. There was never any military reason for this kind of action and no pressure from the military authorities.
Adjournment Debate
Nor did the Civil Service ask for the evacuation. The Civil Service was certainly more knowledgeable than the politicians of the day. Nor did the RCMP who conducted investigations ask for it. No acts of sabotage were carried out, there was no espionage and no evidence that any was planned.
Japanese-Canadians even volunteered for military service and some actually served. Ken Adachi's book is truly titled "The Enemy That never Was". The pressure, unfortunately, was political. There was an appeal by unscrupulous politicians to racial hatred and fear on the part of white British Columbians. It is part of long-standing prejudices and was seen in the period before the war in the denial of full citizenship rights to orientals throughout the 1930s, especially the right to vote.
There never was any need for the evacuation and that it was motivated by prejudice can readily be seen in the treatment of Japanese Canadians after the war. For purposes of immigration Germans were put on the same basis as other Europeans in 1950, while in 1952 the Japanese were still treated as enemy aliens. The enfranchisement of Japanese Canadians occurred only in 1948. Wartime controls on Canadians of Japanese origin were kept on until 1949 so Canadians of Japanese origin were required to carry a permit from the RCMP to visit B.C. Some went to jail for not having a permit. Interned people were not allowed back to B.C. for years, and even later were not allowed to have their fishing permits back.
A scandal erupted on the issue of deportation of people who had requested repatriation to Japan. It was later found that the requests were often never understood. Some were coerced and wives and dependents were included in the deportation. Fortunately, deportation orders were eventually abandoned. As late as April 1947 a CCF motion in the House of Commons was defeated 105 to 31 to remove all restrictions on Japanese Canadians. Only four Liberals and two Conservatives voted with the CCF.
This might be the time to pay tribute to my predecessors in the CCF for their courageous work in fighting against prejudice and for fair treatment. There was Angus Maclnnis, J. S. Woodsworth and Andrew Brewin of Greenwood who was prominent in the compensation issue and the fight against deportation after the war.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has made reference to the Royal Commission on Compensation for Japanese Canadians. I should like to note that the compensation provided was only partial. More than 22,000 people were uprooted and moved across Canada, yet there were only 1,434 claims. Estimates are that people received only one-third of the value of their loss. Claims were made for more than $7 million but only $2.5 million was paid. Some claimants received as little as $50. It was not possible for many people, upon their return, to take up the life they had left behind. They could not buy back their houses and boats or the property they had been forced to sell. The compensation did not take into account inflation, loss of wages, salaries or profits let alone the suffering and humiliation.

June 27, 1983
Adjournment Debate
The Royal Commission exonerated the custodians office which is to say that it did the job it was told to do. What a job that was. There has been no apology, no remorse, no recognition of the injustice which was done. I note also that the Canadian judicial system failed utterly to redress the wrongs.
In the United States, Japanese Americans were able to get some relief. It was inadequate, but there was some relief. In Canada, these people had no rights once the War Measures Act was declared. Legal action in Canada was confined to the period after the War Measures Act and, indeed, well after the War. Interestingly, it was the last appeal to the Privy Council in the United Kingdom on certain deportation orders which ended that history of appeal. I am sorry to say that the Privy Council failed rather miserably. It did not even allow the modest exception which our timid Supreme Court of Canada would have. This happened to be the first case which was decided in the new Supreme Court of Canada Buildings. It was certainly not a good beginning for that Court.
Since World War II, Japanese Canadians have become an integral part of Canadian society. Many have played a very special role as the conscience of Canada in the peace movement. We cannot forget, and, indeed, I believe it is relevant to the discussion before us now on the treatment of Japanese Canadians here in Canada that it was on Japan that the first two atomic bombs were exploded. I regret to say it was the same Mackenzie King who authorized the internment of Japanese Canadians in 1942, who also said it was fortunate that the bombs were used on the Japanese rather than on the white races of Europe.
Concrete proposals have been made for $50 million to be given to a foundation which would in turn make particular reparation and otherwise use the money for the promotion of racial harmony and human rights. Good projects have been proposed and this seems to be an eminently reasonable approach. Certainly, the Minister of Justice should continue consultations with appropriate organizations and individuals and come back to Parliament with a firm proposal. One requirement for the building of a better society is to admit frankly the mistakes of the past and seek to redress the harm done. Justice must be done to Canadians of Japanese ancestry and it is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to take the next step.


Mr. Al MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, there is no question that one of the more striking episodes in our history is that of the treatment of Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War. During that war, Japanese-Canadians were detained in transfer centres and internment camps pursuant to regulations made under the War Measures Act, and their property was seized and their loyalty to Canada was questioned. In Canada, compensation for property losses suffered by about 1,300 persons was paid in 1950, in the amount of approximately $1.2 million, following an examination of the claims of Japanese-Canadians by a Commission headed by Mr. Justice Bird
between 1947 and 1950. The procedures for submitting claims were widely publicized at the time and the awards of compensation were made after careful examination of the legal and factual basis of each case.
As the Minister indicated in his answer before this House on June 9, 1983, this matter is indeed under consideration by the Government at this time. This is a complex matter. Claims other than those based on infringement of property rights would be particularly complicated, both factually and legally, and especially having regard to the considerable passage of time. The fact that the events took place so long ago makes it difficult to identify them, quantify them and redress them in a manner which balances all the legal and equitable interests at stake. There are no simple solutions to the claims of those interned during the war.
Japanese-Canadians will be holding a conference in the fall during which they will discuss their position with respect to these issues. The Government will be very interested in learning of the proposals presented at this conference, as the wish of Japanese-Canadians regarding the events of the war must necessarily be an important factor in determining what form of reparative action might be appropriate in the circumstances.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PERCENTAGE OF PROCUREMENT FROM MANITOBA SUPPLIERS. (B) REQUEST THAT MANITOBA ORDERS BE INCREASED
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, on June 16, as recorded at page 26438 of Hansard, I asked a question of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) relative to the procurement policy of that Department. That Department had issued figures as to the amount of goods and services it had purchased from various Provinces of Canada.
For some period of time it has been the stated policy of the Government that the procurement of goods and services should be more equitably distributed across the country, a goal which the Government has stated and one which has been accepted by Members of the House. The Government stands condemned by its own figures. Its released figures would show that of contracts worth approximately $5 billion, the following purchase percentages apply: for Atlantic Canada, 7 per cent, for the two Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, 77 per cent and for the West, 15 per cent. Specifically for the Province of Manitoba, which was the focus of my question, the Government's own figures show that only 3.7 per cent of total procurement contracts by the Department of Supply and Services have been issued for suppliers and business people in the Province. The Government gives lip service to a procurement policy which is to be equitable and fairly distributed to all Provinces and to all regions, but its own figures would indicate that those are words only.
In defence, the Government states, "Those are past figures. The next figures will be better". How many times have we heard that the next figures will be better, that we are doing

June 27, 1983

better and that all we should do is to be patient? Manitobans, for too long, have been too patient with the Government.
It is surely incumbent on the Government to give clear indications of procurement policy whereby there will be a better, more fair and equitable distribution for moneys spent. It should be kept in mind that the moneys spent are taxpayers moneys. The Government has received those moneys, to be used wisely and properly, from all sectors of the country and from every citizen. Therefore, the Government should be very careful to encourage, through its purchasing program, fairness in distribution.
Another factor that must be kept in mind is that the Government will state that it does not have the distributors at certain points. Very often one of the reasons distributors are not available is because of the Government's procurement policy to begin with. Through centralisation, too often businesses which could have been established in other regions of the country have not received the same consideration as those in central Canada. It is hard for me to understand, as a person coming from the Prairies, that in Atlantic Canada where we have matters relating to the offshore, the coastline, search and rescue and the Armed Forces only 7 per cent of the total purchases of the Department of Supply and Services would come from that region.


Howard Edward Crosby: That figures.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am saying that as one who does not come from that region. It just simply boggles my mind to think that there are no more than 7 per cent of entrepreneurs in Atlantic Canada who could have supplied those goods and services for the Government of Canada. Nor am I saying for a minute that the Government would go to those regions for purposes of regionalism only and that competitiveness should not apply. I have no doubt in my mind that those people, given an opportunity, would be as competitive as those in any other part of Canada. The same applies in the West.
The Minister of Supply and Services said that on the Prairies, specifically in Winnipeg, we have been involved in the aeronautical industry. 1 pointed out to him CAE. CAE has closed down. If that is an example of success, we can do without that success.
I am saying to the Parliamentary Secretary not to promise us better figures but to show us; show us by a very clear pattern how those figures will be changed in order that our business people in the regions will have the same consideration for competitive contracts as those in the two central Provinces. We are asking for tangible results, not promises or hope. Give us some tangible results. The Government has had enough time.
We hear much about regional disparity. We hear much about divisiveness in the country. Surely this would be one very straightforward means by which we could put action to the
Adjournment Debate
sentiments expressed by a Government that surely should have national policies in mind rather than regional considerations.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, it is a plesure to rise in response to the Hon. Member's question on federal Government purchases in the Province of Manitoba. It is, of course, too early in the year to give an accurate estimate of purchases that will be made in this current fiscal year in Manitoba.
The figure of 3.7 per cent referred to by the questioner reflects the current figure of 1,247 contract documents issued in Manitoba for the first two months of this financial year by both our regional and headquarters offices, for a total dollar value of $13.3 million. Last year some 13,000 documents were issued for a total value of $151 million. On that scale these first few months auger well for the future of contracting in Manitoba. In fact, the amount of regional purchases in the Province of Manitoba has increased by 15 per cent per year over the past three fiscal years. In actual dollars, the total of contracts issued regionally in Manitoba has climbed from $34.2 million in 1980-81 to $47.3 million in 1982-83.
I am also pleased to say that there are contracts before Treasury Board at this moment that will be of significant benefit to Manitoba in the aerospace field. On this subject there will be further significant sums going to the Manitoba aerospace industry as part of the CF-18 offset program. The growth of our regional purchases in Manitoba is further confirmed by our recent opening of an extra sub-office in Shilo, reflecting DSS activity in Manitoba.
We are, as the Hon. Member may know, decentralized inasmuch as we operate a network of supply centres across the country. These centres are there to respond to the needs of the federal Government departments that are located in those regions. The number of contracts issued in any particular region depends, therefore, to a large degree on the program requirements of our customers in those areas.
In order to spread the economic advantages of federal procurement to as many of these regions as possible, we also arrange for regional purchasing of the majority of the goods and services that are requisitioned at headquarters here in Ottawa where this is practical in terms of achieving the best value for every dollar spent.
It follows therefore that in terms of percentages of contracts issued across the country, one must take into consideration the industrial base of the Provinces concerned. Obviously, a broad, highly industrialized economic base would naturally succeed in competing for and winning a higher percentage of contracts than one whose base is mainly agricultural. We can, after all, only expect contracts to be let to those companies that win them in open competition.
The Hon. Member must acknowledge that in this free enterprise country, open competition is the only way we can ensure fair and equal treatment to all potential suppliers. The fact that at any particular period one province may be more

June 27, 1983
Adjournment Debate
successful than another is based on its ability to compete at that time.
This nation has experienced the trauma of recession. It is now on the upturn and our collective economic future is brighter today than it has been for years. Simply witness the report of Statistics Canada that shows, our inflation rate to be 5.5 per cent, the lowest it has been in ten years. Over the past year, however, we have seen a cutback in Government spending resulting in a percentage drop in this spending to most Provinces across Canada.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


THE ADMINISTRATION-USE OF EXECUTIVE AIRCRAFT BY MINISTERS. (B) STATUS OF PASSENGERS ON FLIGHT TO ANTIGUA
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, my purpose tonight is to review and consider the questions 1 raised on June 6 and June 7, 1983, concerning the use of the Government's executive jets by the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan). Let me quickly explain that that Minister who represents the constituency of Halifax has also held in the past the portfolios of Secretary of State, a Minister of Labour and was also the Cabinet Member in charge of Fitness and Amateur Sport. I do not want to create any confusion with the various titles. We are talking about the Hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan). Let me begin by stating categorically that I recognize a legitimate need for air services to Members of the Cabinet and other Government officials under proper circumstances. The Government for that very purpose keeps a fleet of planes, three JetStars and other aircraft in order to provide these kinds of necessary special services.
What I want to stress and underline tonight is that there is a limit and a point at which there is not legitimate use of these aircraft, and 1 think everybody now agrees that the Minister of State for International Trade has gone beyond that limit. He has taken unto himself the right to use these aircraft in a manner which most people would not find proper.
What in specific terms the Minister has done, just to give two examples, is, first, he took a jet aircraft to Vancouver for a meeting and stopped on his return at Denver, Colorado, to attend a World Cup ski meet. On another occasion the Minister took a jet and went to Antigua, stopping in West Palm Beach, Florida, to pick up in-laws, Mr. and Mrs. Goiightly. I am not going to stress these points because they are a matter of public record reported across the country and most people have condemned this activity. It is not only my view, and I want to emphasize that. I am not here to wreak a vendetta on my colleague from Nova Scotia, the Minister of State for International Trade. We share streets within the City of Halifax, Dutch Village Road and Main Avenue. I am here on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia and indeed the people of Canada to point out that we cannot accept this kind of behaviour. We are not alone. There is condemnation from the The Mail-Star in Halifax to the Vancouver newspapers. All are agreed that the Minister has overstepped the bounds of proper
practice and proper procedure. Let me quote some of the things that have been written, Madam Speaker. On June 3, 1983, the Calgary Herald wrote:
International Trade Minister Gerald Regan has clearly abused the privileges of his office and interpreted the guidelines for use of Government jets in a manner which insults the public purse.
That is not me writing as the Hon. Member from Halifax West. That is the Editor writing for the Calgary Herald. Then we read in the Vancouver Sun, which was carried from coast to coast:
Federal Transport Minister Jean-Luc Pepin would have done better not to have said anything at all than be drawn into a defence of his high-flying colleague, International Trade Minister Gerald Regan.
Then we come to the Toronto Star, a paper not unknown for sympathy toward the Liberal Party, which wrote:
International Trade Minister Gerald Regan once had this observation about the federal government's seven-passenger Lockheed JetStar executive aircraft: "Not as comfortable as flying first class on Air Canada, but better than economy.
Papers are unanimous right across the country in the condemnation of this activity by the Minister of State for International Trade. This condemnation not only extends to the use of the JetStars because we find an article in the Toronto Sun for June 3, 1983, which points out the looseness in the administration of expense accounts. There are also articles in The Globe and Mail that one can read which state that Cabinet expense accounts lack detail. Their articles refer specifically to the expense account of the Hon. Minister of State for International Trade, particularly on the very trip to Antigua.
In this connection I ask Hon. Members to take a look at The Globe and Mail for May 31, 1983. What I am here to complain about and what I indicated in my questions is that something has to be done about this activity. We just cannot sit here and accept this as the standard behaviour. We have to move, Madam Speaker. My suggestion is that the Government move immediately to establish proper rules governing the use of executive aircraft by Cabinet Ministers. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has said in this House, and it is repeated in an article which appeared on June 3, 1983, in The Chronicle Herald, that the Minister of State for International Trade must justify his use of the flights. The standard is your own personal code of conduct. We have found out that that is not good enough. We have to have an objective code of conduct. We have to have it legislated. The Government has to say what Ministers are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. It is not good enough to have these executive flight operational rules promulgated by the Deputy Minister of Transport which indicates the circumstances under which Government jets can be used. We cannot have this inane flying over the country, taking one's family hither and yon, stopping in London to let off one's wife and going on to Calgary, costing taxpayers thousands of dollars. We have to impose a standard on ourselves, on Cabinet and on everyone who feeds at the public trough. Everyone who benefits from the public purse has to observe the same standard, and that standard has to be
June 27, 1983

an objective one, one which requires accountability. We cannot go on simply doing what we want to do and taking our chances. These are public funds we are using and for which we are responsible. We must have a code of conduct.
I want to end by quoting an article which appeared in the Edmonton Journal. It gave some advice to the trade Minister; it said, "Take the train." The article indicated that the CBC released some documents showing that the Minister of State for International Trade took members of his family with him on 15 official trips, and it pointed out the pressing need for strict enforcement of federal restrictions on Government travel. It ended up telling the Minister, "Take the train; we do not trust you with our airplanes any more".
It is obvious the Minister of State for International Trade has abused his privileges and now must be held accountable, notwithstanding his defence or his saying that there was room on the aircraft and that he could take his family because it was not costing anybody anything. That is not good enough. I do not think anyone in Government fails to recognize that that is not good enough. We must have an objective test. My purpose is to appeal to the Government, to the Ministry and to those responsible for the public Treasury to come up with a code of conduct and rules governing the use of executive aircraft and to impose them upon every Member of Cabinet, every Member of the House.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member had several specific questions about the use of executive aircraft and made reference to the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan).
First, I think it is unfortunate the Hon. Member is dwelling on the travel of an individual Minister, especially a Minister who has done so much to promote Canadian exports around the world. If the Hon. Member really has concerns about the use of executive aircraft, he can pursue them without reflecting on an individual who happens to be promoting Canadian interests abroad.
The guidelines governing the use of executive aircraft provide for aircraft to be booked in the names of Ministers of the Crown. It is left to their discretion who will accompany them. This is not unreasonable in the Government's view. Once
Adjournment Debate
a Minister has established the need for the aircraft for the conduct of Government business, as he must under the guidelines, the marginal cost of filling one or more otherwise empty seats is minimal. Therefore, it is possible for a Minister to be accompanied by officials of his Department, members of his family, members of the press or, as sometimes happens, members of other Parties.
It is interesting that the Hon. Member did not complain in his remarks tonight about his Conservative colleagues who take their spouses and children on DND flights from Shearwater to Ottawa and back. Also it is interesting he did not mention whether he takes his family or part of his family on such DND flights. If he does, the Government has no objection since we see our families so little.
It is very unfortunate the Hon. Member would take off on the Minister in this way rather than seek information on what are the guidelines of the Department of Transport. The guidelines are there. They are very clear. Manifests are kept. This is something about which the Hon. Member asked on June 7. The most important thing in the manifest is to obtain the individual's name. An attempt is also made to obtain the individual's affiliation, such as whether the traveller is a Member of Parliament, a public servant or a guest, but this information is supplementary. If there was an error on a particular manifest, about which the Hon. Member also complained on June 7, I can assure him that there was no intention to mislead him or anyone else. Naturally efforts will be made to be as accurate as possible, remembering the main purpose of the manifests.


Howard Edward Crosby: Where is Regan?


Jesse Philip Flis: The Hon. Member asks where the Minister of State for International Trade is. He had to leave just before 11 o'clock to fly to Vancouver. I did not ask what flight he took. The Minister is sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to decide whether to take an MOT flight or a commercial flight.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock.
At 11.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, June 28, 1983