1985-11-06

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, one year ago almost to the day the Government decided to cut useful and important services. In the case of the environment the Government slashed, without consideration of long-term consequences, $3.8 million from the Canadian Wildlife Service, a 27 per cent reduction in the strength of the service which has a national and international reputation for outstanding research and activities. Some 72 highly qualified scientists, technicians and the like have been lost. A unique federal role has disappeared including, despite denials, the research into herring gull eggs and toxicity in the Great Lakes.
Some $18.7 million has been cut from the Parks Canada budget. Planned developments have been postponed, delayed, or made conditional upon funding by way of public drives; marine park announcements have been postponed; future planning has been curtailed; user fees have been increased; amendments approved by the Liberal Government have been delayed; and northern parks and wilderness area announcements have been postponed.
Some $6 million for a toxicology centre at Guelph has been cut. Forgone is the opportunity to establish a centre of excellence for North America which would attract top quality scientists, including Canadians presently working abroad. A brain drain of emerging Canadian scientists is therefore at stake.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the Botha Government has decided that if television and photo reporting of demonstrations, funerals, and brutal police behaviour is banned in South Africa, we in the West will
believe that they no longer exist. Mr. Botha's desire to do his killing behind closed doors is a clear indication that the Government of South Africa does not intend to introduce significant reform to end apartheid and bring about democratic rule in that country.
Yesterday the Pretoria Government seized clergyman Allan Boesak's passport just hours after a court ruled it should be returned to him. This demonstration of contempt for the courts and the rule of law is one more indication that that anti-democratic Government has no intention of working toward reform in that country.
Surely a Government which denies its citizens fundamental human rights and hides its terrorist tactics from the world should be shut off from the world through the termination of all diplomatic relations.


CRIME PREVENTION WEEK
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, during Crime Prevention Week people across the country take time to highlight special measures which can be used in each community, by the citizens themselves, to assist professional law enforcement officers in crime prevention.
In the last five years we have seen the aggregate crime rate gradually start to subside. This is due, in large part, to increased public consciousness with regard to a community's intolerance of criminal activity. Programs such as Block Parents, Neighbourhood Watch, Crime Stoppers, and Crime Prevention Week are excellent examples of how citizens can take part in creating safer neighbourhoods.
Preventive measures are only one part of our criminal justice system and must be complemented by effective enforcement, prosecution, and rehabilitation facilities. Canadians are taking preventive steps to help themselves from becoming victims of crime. It is our responsibility, as legislators, to see that the other parts of the system function effectively.
We must ensure that our courts can use effectively designed legislation to defend community safety and private property. In recent times our system has elevated the protection of individual rights, particularly of the accused, far above the emphasis on responsible behaviour. This trend will have to be reversed through tough but just enforcement and a penal system which places equal emphasis on justice, the rights of victims, and positive rehabilitation based on responsibility and self-reliance. If these goals are pursued, then the efforts of our

November 6, 1985
citizens in Crime Prevention Week will be all the more worth while.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, this fall the Canadian Government in its strong show of Arctic sovereignty indicated to northern residents that the true North will once again be made strong and free. I would like to take this opportunity to assure the Members of the House and all Canadians that the Inuit have always had a strong history of political and cultural survival.
On the political front we are on the verge of taking over the terrified territorial Government through division of the Northwest Territories. Aboriginal rights and land claims are also close to being completed.
Current Inuit cultural endeavours include over eight hours of daily radio broadcasting in Inuktitut across eastern and central Arctic regions. These programs cover everything from current issues to stories featuring past traditions. In fact the national news is read in Inuktitut daily. Television broadcasts produced by the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation offer similar programs of interest which link Inuit with their historical roots as well as the current affairs of the day.
On behalf of all Inuit I would like to make it known that we are not an endangered species. Because of our presence the true North is strong and free, and will remain so for the next several hundred years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's attitude towards Public Service employees is altogether unacceptable. Ever since it came into office the Government has been responsible for the lay-offs of thousands of public servants, and it intends to proceed with the elimination of many other jobs over the next few years without any due consideration for the services rendered to the Canadian public by these loyal and devoted employees.
The Conservatives are trying to reduce the deficit at the expense of public servants, yet they squander taxpayers' money as a result of their ill-advised decisions respecting the banks- this will cost over $1 billion-mot to mention certain Ministers' abuses to refurbish their offices, grossly inflated salaries paid to their executive assistants, limousines and other such excessive expenditures by the Conservative Party.
Public servants have never been so demoralized, Mr. Speaker, almost as much as House employees are right now. The Prime Minister had promised to provide public servants with the tools required to boost productivity. By letting the sword of Damocles hang over their heads, does he really expect to maintain good relations between his Government and Public Service employees? It is unfair, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister should make amends to Canadians and public servants for having deluded them in the past.


THE SENATE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the Government claims it is always looking for ways of cutting Government costs and has asked opposition Members to give their suggestions. I have an idea which I am sure all Members, especially the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), will find very hard to resist implementing.
Research I have done into the length of time the Senate sits to debate legislation which has already been passed by the House of Commons clearly casts serious doubts on the Senate's role of sober second thought.
This October presents a particularly good example of how cost effective my idea is, as well as how inefficient the present Senate is, given the cost associated with its operation. During the whole month of October the Senate sat for only 10 hours and 10 minutes. Taking into account the total Senate budget, this works out to approximately $22,277 per Senator for a 10-hour work month.
Given the Government's preference for contracting out work, I would suggest that it makes sense to go one step further and contract out the Senate. It makes even greater sense to pay those people at an hourly wage rate.

[ Translation]


FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I had the pleasure of tabling a petition in the House on behalf of a group of children, and I am referring to the pupils of the Treffle-Gauthier primary school in Jonquiere.
Mr. Speaker, on the 40th anniversary of the UN, these children gave me a message of peace which they asked me to transmit to this House.

November 6, 1985

All these children, who are between 6 and 12 years old, heard from their teachers about the importance of the United Nations Organization and its difficult mission in the world today.
Mr. Speaker, the message, which was handed to me by Magalie Briere on behalf and in the presence of all the pupils of her school, is as follows:
We address this letter to you, the leaders of our country, to express our sadness and our concern about peace in this world. We may be very young, but we believe that everyone has the right to live, and to live an increasingly better life. We want peace and brotherhood to be present everywhere in this world. We are sincere in making this gesture and we believe it is an important one. We firmly believe in your desire and commitment to take concrete action so that our desire for peace will become a reality throughout the world. We ask you to continue to encourage every effort being made in the pursuit of this ideal.
Signed: We, the boys and girls of Treffle-Gauthier School, October 24, 1985. Mr. Speaker, this document was handed to me before the assembled pupils of this school, in a very original way, because the message was published in a-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today about the decision to reopen the Cyprus Anvil Mine. We in northern New Brunswick are asking the Government to reconsider that decision. There are presently 200,000 metric tones of over-produced zinc in the world, and this is after a 10 per cent cut by Inco and Noranda, plus the closure of several Canadian mines.
The most recent annual Mines Department market forecast predicted that this over-capacity in zinc production would continue at least until the end of the decade and prices will stay depressed. It said the industry would have to keep supply and demand in tight balance in order to be competitive. The estimated 300,000 metric tonnes which will be produced by the Cyprus Anvil Mine will create havoc in an already saturated market.
There are 2,300 people employed in the zinc-lead industry in northern New Brunswick. The reopening of the Cyprus Anvil Mine will only cause job losses in an area which is already recognized as a very economically depressed area of Canada. The economic impact of any loss of jobs would be devastating to a region which already has a 30 per cent unemployment rate.
I realize that the Yukon has a very high unemployment rate as well, but I think it would be a more well received decision to delay the reopening of the Cyprus Anvil Mine until the zinc market improves.
Oral Questions


THE FAMILY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Members of this House, and especially the Conservative Members, of commitments made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government to our Canadian families.
First of all, on November 5, and I quote: "My Government has as a high priority measures to support and strengthen the Canadian family, which is the conerstone of our society."
On November 15, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) said: "It is my role as Minister of National Health and Welfare to put forward signals and initiatives which will strengthen the role of the family and give it more prominence in society than I feel it has been given before."
In his Christmas message on December 22, 1984, the Prime Minister said: "The family unit must remain the cornerstone of our society."
And when his fourth child was born, the Prime Minister declared that the family was the most beautiful thing in the world.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would invite all the Conservative Members of this House to remind the Prime Minister of these words, since he has cut $55 million, over two years, from support programs of low-income families. The only family that has been able to benefit from the largesse of this Government is the Reichmann family, which received a present of $600 million from the Conservative Government.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I may point out to the House that my former colleague from Verdun is with us today.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, both no doubt now visiting Florida, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Once again we have another example of confusion and contradiction in the Government in its handling of a very vital trade issue. In particular, the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday displayed a deplorable lack of understanding of the situation when he claimed the reason we were going to

November 6, 1985
Oral Questions
bargain with our cultural industries was to gain greater access to the U.S. market when, indeed, we already have full and open access to that market. The Canadian Publishing Association said that statement was full of nonsense.
What I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister is the real purpose behind putting our cultural industries on the bargaining table. Is this the pre-condition that Mr. Shultz told the Secretary of State that the Americans will demand in order to go ahead with the talks? Is that the real reason we are sacrificing our cultural industries at the negotiating table?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the twisted and distorted interpretation which the Hon. Member, not just on this occasion but on past occasions, has attempted to put on the words of the Prime Minister and other Ministers in addressing issues. The Prime Minister very clearly said yesterday, and I quote from page 8364 of Hansard:
What I did tell them was that-I repeated my statement of September 26- our political sovereignty, our system of social programs, our commitment to fight regional disparities, our unique cultural identity and our special linguistic character are the essence of Canada. They are not at issue in these negotiations.
Surely nothing could be clearer to any simple-minded person in this House of Commons.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I can think of no Minister who better exemplifies what it is to be simple-midned. What he simply demonstrates by that response is that there is a complete repudiation, in the statement of the Prime Minister, of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That is what we want to know. Who is speaking for the Government? Is the Government prepared to have our cultural industries placed on the negotiating table with the Americans, or are we to listen to the general polemics of the Prime Minister? What is the Government intending to do in this vital area?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, what is so difficult to understand? What is so polemic about a statement which stipulates that our political sovereignty, our system of social programs, our commitment to fight regional disparities, our unique cultural identity and our special linguistic character are the essence of Canada? Is that too complicated for the Hon. Member to understand?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes!


Erik Nielsen: They are not at issue in these negotiations. Is that so difficult for the Hon. Member to understand?


FILM AND BOOK PUBLISHING INDUSTRIES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would simply turn the question back to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it so difficult for him to understand that the
Secretary of State for External Affairs has clearly indicated that he intends to have as part of the negotiations our film and book publishing industries? Are they not part of our cultural integrity and sovereignty? Who is speaking for the Government? Obviously the Secretary of State is being repudiated by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Canadian people have a right to know, and it is up to the Government to stop keeping us in the dark.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is an utter crock of rhubarb, and the Hon. Member knows it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The Secretary of State said no such thing and the Hon. Member should not try to distort to the extent that he does.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY-TERRITORIAL WATERS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, during oral question period, the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred several times to what happened in the North this summer. The Americans violated our territorial waters, and now the Government has decided to act.
Is this the Government's policy today? Can the Minister of National Defence give the House the assurance that next summer, if the Americans again sail into our territorial waters, the Government will act before our territory is violated instead of after the fact?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. gentleman and the Government of which he was a part had something in the order of 16 years to ponder that question, and did nothing. We have acted.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Deputy Prime Minister that we passed the Act in 1970. We were never insulted by the American Government when we were in government as the present Government has been with regard to the Canadian north.


EFFECT OF NEGOTIATIONS ON ARTISTS AND AUTHORS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Is the Government going to follow the same policy in the cultural field? Will the Government act after our publishing and film industries have disappeared and Canadian artists and authors have to beg for work in the United States, as it did in the case of the North last summer?


*Hi
November 6, 1985


Erik Nielsen: Sir, I recognize that we have a newcomer into the field of the arts.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A very successful one.


Erik Nielsen: I say that "from the heart" to the hon. gentleman. I can assure him that the answer to his question is plain. 1 have read it and re-read it for the benefit of his more simple-minded colleague. I am sure that he will better understand it given his artistic and discerning talents.


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last week we learned from the Auditor General that Dome Petroleum gained about $1 billion at the expense of other taxpayers in the form of a tax remission. While the Minister has been trying to make up his mind on whether Canadians should be informed about such tax remissions on a regular basis, I have learned that Syncrude has also benefited from tax remissions to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars. Will the Minister confirm that so far Syncrude has in fact gained upwards of about $200 million in tax remissions?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will correct what the Hon. Member said in his preamble because, although I am sure not purposely, he has misled the House. He said that Dome Petroleum has gained. If 1 may remind him, Dome Petroleum would have gone bankrupt had this remission order not been given. Therefore, it is not that Dome Petroleum has gained, it is that the Government has gained by allowing Dome some relief in order that it can stay in business, keep people employed, keep the energy service industry alive and active in western Canada and continue to provide tax dollars to the Government. Therefore, the Government has gained from that remission order.
In relation to the Syncrude order that he spoke about, I will have to clarify the details before responding to that question.


REQUEST FOR REGULAR PUBLICATION OF TAX REMISSION ORDERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will look into it. It is our caculation that Syncrude has gained up to $200 million so far. This particular remission goes on until the year 2003 and the net cost to other Canadian taxpayers will be in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. Therefore, does the Minister not think it entirely appropriate to decide now that information on such costs to taxpayers who foot the bill ought to be made available on a regular basis to those taxpayers?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I do want to clarify my understanding and recollection of what the Hon. Member has raised before 1 comment on it. My immediate response would be that he is excessive in the numbers he has used but I will not comment further without clarifying them myself.
I have said in response to his question last week that I would consider that, and I am carefully considering it now. There are certain aspects of confidentiality as it relates to individuals who receive the benefit of tax remission orders. As I indicated yesterday, there are hundreds of these during the course of the year. I want to clarify that before I make a decision.


TAXPAYERS' RIGHT TO KNOW
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Government in its wisdom has now increased taxes for ordinary taxpayers across the country to the extent of hundreds of dollars and up to a thousand dollars per average family. When taxpayers are paying the bill, as they would in tax allocations and tax benefits to Dome and Syncrude, will the Minister tell us why he must consider this any longer? Why can he not make a commitment to taxpayers of Canada now that when they are paying the bill they have a right to know who is getting that money?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is about the fourth or fifth time that I have responded to this question. I think the people of Canada would not want me to make a snap judgment on the floor of the House of Commons but to consider the implications of this, which is something that is quite far-reaching in relation to past practice. I want to consider it carefully before making a judgment.
Let me remind the Hon. Member that we are in no way hesitant to take action where action is needed. We cut out the SRTCs. We cut out limited partnerships where it was inappropriate. We cut out carve-outs, and we cut out income splitting. We put on a surtax for upper-income Canadians and we will establish a minimum tax effective January 1. That is action for which I think the Hon. Member should be applauding us.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Communications. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that his Government plans to protect our cultural institutions, if not our cultural industries. Last night we heard a cry from the heart from Mr. Juneau, the man after whom we named our Canadian music awards. He says that our Canadian culture, through our national instrument of the CBC, will be destroyed if the Government proceeds with its savaging cuts

November 6, 1985
Oral Questions
to its budget. How can Canadians be expected to believe that the Government is serious about protecting our Canadian identity?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the same reports and I fail to see how expenditures of $846.8 million in taxpayers' money in this fiscal year, and, I believe, $825.8 million last year, can be in any way described as destructive of the CBC.


Sheila Finestone: I don't know whether we will have any Canadian industries left as a result of the way you are speaking and whether we will have any cultural identity left.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister take Mr. Juneau seriously, go back to the drawing board and reconsider his program so that our cultural identity can be reflected through a proper communicating mechanism?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. lady comes from, but-


Sheila Finestone: Mount Royal.


Erik Nielsen: I know the riding of the Hon. Member. But where I come from, $850 million does mean something.


FINANCE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On February 13, 1981, I asked the Minister of Finance of that day, Mr. MacEachen, how the Government would pay for the take-over of PetroFina by Petro-Canada. The present Minister of Finance is aware of this because he was the Conservative energy critic when I asked that question. I am still waiting for the answer, as is the Auditor General.
Given the facts raised by my Leader today about Syncrude and its getting tax remissions from 1978 to the year 2002, would the Minister of Finance undertake to come back to the House after the break with the particular figures of how much Syncrude will benefit from those tax remissions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I do not give snap answers on the floor of the House of Commons on matters about which I must make a careful study before giving an answer. I have indicated to his Leader that I would look into the problem. Surely that is good enough for now. If he wants to pose the question on November 18, maybe I will have a different answer.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, given that both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada, used to be in opposition and appreciate the difficulty of Opposition Members getting answers to these questions, will the Minister of Justice now tell the House that he is prepared to go along with the views of the Auditor General, the servant of Parliament, who says he will not abuse his authority if the Government does not appeal the decision of Mr. Justice Jerome, and give some access to those Government documents in the Petrofina case?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation repeating that if there is no appeal of that judgment, we will certainly co-operate with the effect of the judgment-


John Edward Broadbent: 1 guess you have to.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and with the Auditor General, whether we have to or not. The Hon. Leader of the NDP would not know whether we have to or not-


John Edward Broadbent: Brr, brr!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is living proof of the imbecility of the Leader of the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CABINET
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, we now know what the Prime Minister forgot yesterday, namely that there are guidelines for authorizations for travel abroad by Ministers. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, and to refresh his memory, I would like to quote from a letter sent by the Minister of State (Transport) to her colleague at External Affairs:
"In accordance with the guidelines contained in the Prime Minister's letter of January 14 concerning authorizations for travel abroad by Ministers, please find enclosed a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. MacAdam".
Are these guidelines and in this letter dated January 14, 1985, going to be published, and is the Government going to explain what role, mandate and authority Mr. Pat MacAdam was given with respect to the approval of these trips?
November 6, 1985


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, I am sure knows that the prerogative for setting the guidelines for the use of aircraft by Members of Parliament, DND aircraft that is, is a prerogative of the Minister of National Defence. Those guidelines are completed and hopefully will be tabled before we break.
With respect to the guidelines concerning the use of administrative aircraft by Ministers and others entitled, such as the Governor General and senior officials and so on, they are almost complete. The Hon. Member knows that that is a Prime Ministerial prerogative. They should be ready for tabling, if not before the break, shortly thereafter.
[ Translation]


MINISTER'S TRAVEL EXPENSES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Every time we put an embarrassing question to the Government, the Minister or Prime Minister fails to answer the question. The Prime Minister did this yesterday, and the Deputy Prime Minister, unless he misunderstood my question, certainly did not answer the question I put to him.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to admit that a number of his colleagues have a tendency towards undue expenditure of public funds, especially the former Minister of Communications, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and now the Minister of State (Immigration), whose behaviour in this respect is well known? Is the Deputy Prime Minister going to ask these Ministers who mix personal travel and pleasure trips with their official business, to restore the funds in question to the public purse?


Erik Nielsen: I do not at all accept that rather enlarged preamble of the Member, Mr. Speaker. He should certainly be the last one to be speaking as a member of a former Government that had three Cabinet Ministers arrive on three separate Government aircraft in the town of his seatmate in one day.


An Hon. Member:: Within an hour.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I think that is right, I think within an hour of each other. I can assure the Hon. Member though, that travel, in terms of the number of trips by members of this Government as compared with the last, of which he was a member, is down 34 per cent. The number of hours flown on aircraft used by members of this Government as compared with the last Government over the past year is down 27 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions NATIONAL PARKS


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Minister of the Environment. He will know that all three Parties in this House support national park status for South Moresby, that the B.C. Government supports it, and there is a national consensus that that area become a national park. Has the Minister any plans to take any action or make any proposals that might head off what is a totally unnecessary confrontation, given the fact that everyone agrees some day that area should be a national park, and soon?


An Hon. Member:: Does Jim Fulton agree?


Mr. Fulton:: Yes.


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right in saying that there is a broadly based consensus in favour of the establishment of a national park in South Moresby. The question, however, is what part of South Moresby should be so designated, whether it should be the entire island or something less. I will say this though. The federal Government is totally committed to the principle of the establishment of a national park covering whatever territory in South Moresby. The prior decision has to be made by the Government of British Columbia and the poeple in that province because it is B.C. Crown land.
Having said that, I can tell the Hon. Member that the federal Government is prepared to do everything possible, including the creative use of public funds to bring about a national park, and I seek the co-operation of the Hon. Member and his Party in that regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Good.


CREATIVE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister elaborate for us what he means by the creative use of public funds, and give us an idea of what he has in mind to avoid confrontation so that we could have the opportunity of supporting a more concrete proposal?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, there are various legitimate interests to be accommodated in this case, certainly those of the Haida Indians, the logging company, Western Forest Products Limited, and its employees.
I am led to believe that there is some openness, if not a commitment, on the part of the company in question at least to consider the possibility of the federal Government and the Government of British Columbia linking arms to buy out some of the timber rights, the legitimate three licences. I would think that the employees themselves, in other words, those who

November 6, 1985
Oral Questions
actually do the logging, should be accommodated in some fashion.
If that is agreeable to the company and to the Government of British Columbia, it is certainly agreeable to me.


John Edward Broadbent: Good answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. It continues to pursue the habits of his well travelled colleague, the Minister of State for Transport.
After Easter in Paris, the former Minister flew to Stockholm, Sweden, where she spent a half day at meetings, attended a cocktail party, a lunch, and a ballet.
Does the Minister agree, according to documents obtained through the Access to Information Act, that the limousine expense of $1,412.35 for a half a day's work, the ballet, and three days vacation, should be paid by the taxpayers?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has based her question on information obtained yesterday or the day before through the Freedom of Information route.
Since that time I have made available to the media, to her Leader and to other Leaders in the House, a reconstructed schedule of the activities-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Reconstructed? How about invented?


Mr. Riis:: You were doing so well, Tom.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -the now Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Much of the controversy is based on the very skeletal schedule, which was-


An Hon. Member:: It was skeletal, all right.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -the official agenda of the then Minister of the Environment. I had put together, based on what information has been made available to me by my Department and by the Minister herself, all information surrounding the many
activities in which she was engaged during the trip in question-


Lloyd Axworthy: Shopping, movies, and so on.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -that were not reflected in the original agenda. I suggest that the Hon. Member go back to the drawing-board and rephrase her question on the basis of more up to date information.


HEALTH MINISTER'S LIMOUSINE BILL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will rephrase my question. How can the Minister justify a four-day Swedish junket at taxpayers' expense by the Minister of State for Transport at the same time as the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was in Sweden to sign the Canadian-Swedish agreement on social security, incurred a total limousine bill of $113, in contrast to the $1,412 limousine bill of the Minister of State for Transport? Can he justify that?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker-


John Edward Broadbent: Jake is in trouble now.


An Hon. Member:: Cheap Jake!


Thomas Michael McMillan: -the Hon. Member has referred to a very busy schedule of official Government business-


André Ouellet: Where?


Thomas Michael McMillan: -of the Hon. Minister of State for Transport, the former Minister of the Environment, as a junket, when in fact her trip included bilateral meetings, multilateral meetings, international signings-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Michael McMillan: -informal discussions, environmental briefings and-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Michael McMillan: -tours of environment-related plants in Sweden, in Paris, and elsewhere. I suggest to her-


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Ross Fulton: Well done, Tom.


An Hon. Member:: Give him a chance.


Mr. Deans:: Why is she doing this to you?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the feeling that no one is listening to the answer, in terms of the noise.


Some Hon. Members:: We are.
November 6, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Then perhaps Hon. Members would allow the answer to be heard in silence.


Some Hon. Members:: Shhh!


Thomas Michael McMillan: May I conclude my answer by saying this. In the relatively short time that I have been Minister of the Environment-


Mr. Rossi:: It has been too long.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -I have received one question from her, and that is the one she asked me today, on environmental matters, at a time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: Answer the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: That is not an answer to the question; that is irrelevant.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: He is bluffing.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we will leave it there. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for-


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My question-


An Hon. Member:: Table the Minister.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if we can calm down the Liberals, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Last Friday 1 asked the Minister why, for several weeks this fall, Prince Edward Island Members of Parliament received seven-day advance notice of job vacancies in both DVA and Employment Canada in that province. Since a senior official has said that this was a very serious mistake in terms of violating the merit principle, can the Minister tell us why Prince Edward Island Members of Parliament received a seven-day advance notice of job vacancies in that province? Can he confirm that Peter White, who is the Prime Minister's patronage man, was at the meeting on September 10 in an attempt to steer patronage jobs in that province to the Conservative Party?
Oral Questions


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Hon. Member last Friday, 1 inquired of the Public Service Commission, which is a body that reports to the House or to Parliament through the Secretary of State, not to Government, and I was informed that that meeting had in fact taken place, and that the decision taken or reached at that meeting, which was an informal meeting which the PSC apparently conducts-


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, oh!


Robert René de Cotret: -The decision taken then was that MPs would receive, at the same time as they are posted, notices of vacancies. It was further misunderstood, unfortunately, by some officials who construed that Members should receive prior of seven days notice. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that, upon learning of this, the Public Service Commission immediately put a halt to it.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION'S ROLE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. However, in light of the statement made last night by the Minister of the Environment on television that he would do it again, and the fact that I found out today that similar meetings have also taken place with MPs from both New Brunswick and Quebec, what assurance can the Minister give the House that this practice indeed will not happen again, when a Minister who sits right behind him says that he would do it again if he had the chance?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the comments of my hon. colleague. I would doubt very much that he is being quoted correctly. I can assure the Hon. Member that from conversations with the Public Service Commission, they were quite disturbed that this unfortunate error at the level of officials had taken place. They have assured me and my office that they will have corrective measures in place to ensure that it no longer continues.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation, I will direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. The special committee, known as the Marchment Committee, named by the Minister's predecessor to study the problems and future of the Post Office in Canada, will soon be reporting. Will the members of that committee be able to hold a press conference so that they can elaborate on their findings and on their recommendations, and respond to questions?


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
November 6, 1985
Oral Questions
Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member for Oxford, I am pleased to report to him, to his constituents and to Members of the House, that when the report is delivered to the Minister it is the intention of the Minister to make such report public. As to his concern about whether the members of the committee can hold a press conference to discuss their findings during the hearings, I will being it to the attention of the Minister, and he will respond to the Hon. Member directly.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the Government's consensus package on reforms to the Canada Pension Plan. Specifically, for the first time it excludes inclusion of a homemaker's pension plan in the common package which will be presented to Finance Ministers tonight at their meeting in Toronto. Will he explain to the women of Canada why his Government is backing off its election campaign promise to include retroactively a homemaker's plan in our public pension plan system?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the appropriate Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, 1 am afraid that 1 will have to take that question as notice. I will make sure that a response to the question is given to the Hon. Member as soon as possible.


INTRODUCTION OF BENEFIT IMPROVEMENTS
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, and I think the Deputy Prime Minister should answer it. In terms of the consensus package, why in heaven's name would the Government, knowing that a large percentage of Canada Pension Plan disability recipients live below the poverty line, adopt the position of phasing in the improvements to the benefits package over five years, rather than introducing a comprehensive plan in 1986, as recommended by our own parliamentary task force on pension reform?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the more the Hon. Member speaks, the more 1 am sure he is absolutely wrong in his premise. Nonetheless, 1 will take notice of the question. I know that the Government has given leadership in terms of pension reform unequalled in the history of the country. I will make sure that the Minister gets back to him and gives him more detail about that progress than he cares he hear.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He will know that we have been waiting 12 weeks for the report from the Hon. Member for Assiniboia on what action will be taken by the Government in the drought zone. Part of that zone is now under snow in the Peace River block. Farmers have waited long enough. Will there or will there not be special assistance for those farmers?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know, and the record will show, that the Government always responds effectively to the problems facing the agricultural industry. I know that he asks this question from time to time. Again I am sure that we will not disappoint Canadian farmers this time. The only thing I can say to him is that, if it was four days ago that he asked that question, we are four days closer to an announcement.


FARM FORECLOSURES-REQUEST THAT MORATORIUM BE EXTENDED
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, if there is not to be financial assistance to farm incomes, will the Government be extending its moratorium on farm foreclosures, which now only covers FCC foreclosures, to other lending institutions? Will there be a judicial procedure offered similar to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in the very near future so that farmers will not be faced with the unfairness of foreclosure as it exists now?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member asked two questions. I would like to remind him that I did not say that there would not be financial assistance forthcoming. With respect to his second suggestion, it is one of the recommendations that we are currently studying, and indeed I take notice of the fact that it was one of the recommendations that was put forward to us by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We regard that organization as a very credible organization representing the agricultural industry.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and, in the absence of that Minister, to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday it was reported that a General Motors of Canada spokesman confirmed that that company intends to transfer production from its plants is Oshawa, St. Catharines, and Windsor to the United States and Mexico by
November 6, 1985

September, 1987, at what UAW people say will be a cost of 5,000 Canadian jobs. What immediate steps is the Government taking to prevent that transfer of production and jobs, something which has nothing to do with Canadian quality, productivity, or efficiency?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out by the hon. gentleman, the responsible Ministers are absent. I will take the question-[DOT]


Mr. Foster:: They are always absent.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is unavoidably absent. I am sure the Hon, Member for Algoma realizes that.


Maurice Brydon Foster: What about the rest of them?


Erik Nielsen: The Acting Minister is away on Government business. I will take the question as notice and see to it that an answer is supplied to the Hon. Member at the earliest possible moment.


AUTO PACT PROVISIONS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, will the Government immediately tell General Motors that any such transfer of production and jobs is unacceptable to Canadians and contrary to the Canadian-content provisions of the Auto Pact and that, if GM persists with these plans, it will apply the Canadian-content provisions of the Auto Pact to the fullest extent? Will the Government make that undertaking today?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that General Motors announced a few months ago it intended to reinvest one billion dollars in Canadian plants or in Canada. So we are already on the right track ... we are negotiating with General Motors and we believe that the jobs will be saved and in fact, that more jobs will be created.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REPAIR OF LOCK AND ESTIMATE OF LOSSES
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, with the planned opening this evening of the Welland Canal after having been shut down-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Ernest Pietz: -for three and a half weeks because of the failure of Lock 7 in Thorold, I would like to ask the Minister of State for Transport if she is in a position to give an estimate both of the cost of repairing the lock and the costs to its users,
Oral Questions
so that we may correlate this to the plan for the super locks that was placed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, the Canal will reopen sometime tonight. It is likely that the first ship in will be the Furia. We do not have all the figures for the cost of the unfortunate event that occured but as soon as the bills come in we will be able to make those figures public. I must say that there have been no lawsuits in this situation but there have been some Notices of Intent filed.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. A Conservative MP and local officials have now suggested that the tarry blob near Sarnia with what the Minister has called horrible levels of cancer-causing dioxin has been known about for 10 years. Will the Minister tell the House when the Ministry first learned of the frightening levels of dioxin in the St. Clair River, and if it has known about it for years, why the first public confirmation came just in the last month?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, 1 can certainly put the Hon. Member's mind at ease on that question. The first tarry patch containing hazardous chemicals was found in August, 1984, through a routine check of the water in question as part of an over-all analysis of the water in the Great Lakes. It was not determined that dioxin, for example, was in the tarry patch until a year later in August, 1985. A second patch was found in September, 1985. I learned about it as a result of its final analysis on October 26, and on October 26, the very same day, I set up a team of high-powered experts from the United States and Canada to deal with the question.


ORIGIN OF DIOXIN-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, given the uncertainty over where the dioxin originates as it does not seem that products that produce dioxin are made in the area, will the Minister order an investigation into possible transport from the United States to Canada by American companies of dioxin-carrying wastes for disposal in the deep-well systems of sister companies in Canada? This could very well be one of the possible sources.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that is a worth-while suggestion and I will give it the careful consideration it richly deserves.

November 6, 1985
8410________________________________
Oral Questions TRANSPORTATION


FUTURE OF CANADIAN NATIONAL'S TRUCKING BUSINESS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, CN Chairman Maurice Le Clair's recent statement that CN may be out of the trucking business by the end of the year has caused understandable concern among CN Route employees in Scarborough and other centres. What assurance can the Minister give us that if there is to be a disposition of CN Route, job protection for its employees will have due priority?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, if a situation like that were to occur, I assure the Hon. Member that we would ask CN to give all due consideration and to do everything possible to minimize the impact on employees.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Sydney Steel workers must keep the coke ovens open because they need those 50 jobs to feed their families, even though a recent Health and Welfare study indicated that those living downwind of the coke ovens die more frequently from cancer, heart problems and lung problems than others. Will the Deputy Prime Minister move now toward making funds available for the second phase of the modernization of Sydney Steel Corporation in order to correct some of these pollution problems? To do otherwise would be to ask people to choose between jobs and their health.	1


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, because there is a distinct environmental dimension to the question the Hon. Member posed, if I may I will reply to that question. We are very well aware of the environmental hazards to the people of Cape Breton, and even beyond, as a result of the facility in question. I have been in touch with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion about the plans for the further modernization of the plant. We are taking fully into account the environmental dimension of the issue.


EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the matter is more serious than that. The people are afraid that the Government will use this health study to make a case for closing down the iron-making facilities in Sydney. When is the Government going to follow the words of the Prime Minister by doing everything humanly possible to bring durable jobs to Cape Breton?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of an irreconcilable conflict
between jobs on the one hand and health on the other. The two can be reconciled, and that is exactly what the Government is doing in Cape Breton and across the country.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, November 5, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to beg the indulgence of the House with respect to a question of privilege. Since many Members do not know, and most of those who sit in the Press Gallery are oblivious, which is understandable, let me say that, come Friday, November 8, six Members of this institution, three from one side and three from the other, who came in with Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Mr. Pelletier, Mr. Marchand and others who have gone by the way, to illustrate the political terminality of this system, will be celebrating-or expressing condolences for-their twentieth anniversary in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, because in the ordinary democratic way most of us will be roasted in our respective constituencies on either Thursday, Friday or Saturday, I was trying to catch your eye today. These Members, illustrious, constructive and good Members all, are the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) and the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) who came in with Pierre Elliot Trudeau-some of us have remained.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I conclude on this note. Because these six Members are semi-superannuates-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I said "superannuates". That is why I wished to beg the indulgence of the House to ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), which was not a set-up because he will not like it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 6, 1985


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: To represent the feelings of those of us who are superannuates, my question is about-and I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will recognize me tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think the House has signalled its respect for those who have served 20 years. I am sure everyone here would want us all to wish those six a very special day. In that context, I am prepared to guarantee the Hon. Member a question tomorrow.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Are you giving me the right to ask my question now?


Some Hon. Members:: No!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S ACT-PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-78, an Act to amend the Governor General's Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Salaries Act and the Judges Act, without amendment, in both official languages.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS-SIXTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHTH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth, seventh and eighth reports of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Hon. Members will know that children are the real winners under these Bills.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.)
Petitions


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Period 1 inadvertently misled the House when I suggested in my question that Syncrude had a tax remission from the year 1978 to the year 2002. It was to the year 2003. I would like to correct my question.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1985-86
[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (B) with regard to sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1986, was presented by Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
 * *

Mr. Roger Clinch (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the House a petition signed by 533 citizens from the Pokemouche River area in New Brunswick, who are asking the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to prevent the use of eel pots and boxnets in this river, in order to upgrade the tourist industry in the region.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
My first petition is from residents in the riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, living at numbers 6870 to 7045, Daveluy Street, who are asking the Canada Post Corporation which is already providing services to residents of part of the street, to offer the same services to others who are not receiving them.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my second petition bears several hundred signatures of people from the riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, who are asking this House to grant, via the Government, full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.

November 6, 1985
Petitions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by Nora Harrison who lives on Prince Edward Street in Vancouver and other residents of the east end of Vancouver who say that in their opinion the indexation of the universal family allowance and the massive cut-backs in the public commitment to child benefits are an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single parent mothers. They ask that the indexing be reinstated.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to present two petitions to the House. The first one is from residents in the Shediac area, and the second from residents of Sackville and Tantramar. Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are demanding full indexation of family allowances.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by constituents of Winnipeg-Birds Hill who join with other Canadians in protesting the deindexation of the family allowance.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a number of petitions which I have the honour and the privilege of tabling in the House today, and which concern this Government's appalling decision to reduce indexation of family allowances. One of these petitions is signed by constituents from the electoral district of Trois-Rivieres; one is from the electoral district of Kent in Ontario; one is from the electoral district of Regina West in Saskatchewan; one is from the riding of Spadina in Ontario; one is from the riding of Hull-Aylmer in Quebec, a province well represented in this House; one is from the riding of Langelier in Quebec; one is from the riding of Malpeque in Prince Edward Island; and finally, one from the riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador in Newfoundland.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have the honour to present a petition from a number of workers at the CRS Workers Co-operative in my riding of Vancouver East. They think that the deindexation of family allowance, combined with tax increases and budget hand-outs, place an extraordinary burden on families, especially on women, single parents and poor families.
They call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of family allowance and rescind unfair tax increases.
I also have the honour to present a petition from professional social workers from the School of Social Work at UBC in Vancouver. They also call for a withdrawal of Bill C-70. They humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate
full indexation of universal family allowance and rescind unfair tax increases.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from Vancouver, Surrey and Richmond, British Columbia, who also comment on their displeasure with the Government's intention to deindex family allowance payments.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of presenting a petition signed by 4,000 workers, all members of Local 6500, United Steel Workers of America, in the Sudbury Basin. This petition decries the fact that the Government has changed the Unemployment Insurance Act so that pension income will be considered earned income effective January 1, 1986.
The petition calls for Parliament to rescind that particular provision before it comes into effect on January 1, 1986. This petition also joins the 10,000 other petitioners whose petitions have already been presented in this House on this subject.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling petitions from the people of the riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie, asking the Right Hon. Prime Minister to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
I have another petition, on behalf of the people of the riding of Sherbrooke in the province of Quebec, who are also asking the Right Hon. Prime Minister to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
I also have petitions from the people of the ridings of Saskatoon East and Saskatoon West in Saskatchewan, the federal riding of Chateauguay and the riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon; these people are also asking the Government to withdraw its Bill aimed at de-indexing family allowances.
I also have petitions from people from Newfoundland, from the ridings of St. John's East and St. John's West, Mr. Speaker, and from Toronto, in the riding of St. Paul's, and from the riding of Timiskaming in Ontario, and my last petition is from the riding of my colleague from Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic who is ill at this time.
All these people are asking the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Government to reinstate full indexation of family allowances.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to submit a petition on behalf of my constituents in Ottawa Centre and on behalf of a number of residents of
November 6, 1985

the riding of Nepean-Carleton and of the City of Winnipeg, all of whom protest the decision of the Government to deindex the family allowance and urge the Government to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases which particularly hit young families with children.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by a number of citizens of the constituency of Prince Albert, and a number of citizens of the City of Saskatoon. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and rescind the unfair tax increases.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from a number of constituents in Spadina and other residents of the City of Toronto who object to the Government's Bill which would partly deindex the family allowance. They ask that the House of Commons have this Bill withdrawn as well as the unfair tax increases which go with it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present these petitions signed by 2,750 constituents from Windsor-Walkerville who demand that full indexation of universal family allowance be maintained and that the unfair tax increases be rescinded.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and an honour to present petitions signed by residents of the metropolitan Toronto area. These persons, largely women, protest the fact that the deindexation of the universal family allowance and the massive cut-backs in the public commitment to child benefits are an unfair attack on women and families with children. They call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the family allowance.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (legal counsel for unborn child).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to require that every unborn child be represented by legal counsel at a meeting of therapeutic abortion committees across the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Business of the House CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: Before I proceed let me say that I did not complete my petitions earlier this day because of proceedings.
I should, however, indicate that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



PERMANENT AND PROVISIONAL STANDING ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
November 4,1985-The President of the Privy Council:
That the Standing Orders be amended by inserting the following new Chapter after Standing Order 84:
"Chapter XVI
Declaration of Interest by Members
85. The Clerk shall maintain a public Registry of foreign travel by Members of Parliament in which members shall register all visits they make outside Canada, arising from or relating to their membership in the House of Commons where the cost of any such travel is not wholly borne by:
(a)	the Consolidated Revenue Fund;
(b)	the member personally;
(c)	any interparliamentary association or friendship group recognized by the
House of Commons; and
(d)	any recognized party;
together with the name of the sponsoring person or organization which paid for travel to and/or from Canada."
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 26, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House.



MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
ORDER OF REFERENCE OF STANDING COMMITTEE On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
November 4, 1985-The President of the Privy Council:
That the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services consider matters related to the establishment of a Register of Members' Interests, and report on these and any other matters relating to registration of Members' interests, including the form and content of such a Register, considering among other matters relating to the registration of Members' interests, the following:
(a)	remunerated directorships of companies, public or private;
(b)	other remunerated positions or offices;
(c)	remunerated trades, professions or vocations;
(d)	the names of clients when the interests referred to above include personal services by the Member which arise out of or are related in any manner to his or her membership in the House;
(e)	any payments or any material benefits or advantages received from or on behalf of foreign Governments, organizations or persons;
[Stage Direction]
November 6, 1985
Supplementary Estimates (B)
(f)	land and property of substantial value or from which a substantial income is derived; and
(g)	the names of companies or other bodies in which the Member has, to his or her knowledge, either himself or herself or with or on behalf of his or her spouse or dependents, any beneficial interest including-among others, share-holderings-of a nominal value greater than one-hundredth of the total capital assets of the company or other body;
and that it report on the form and content of such a Register not later than December 31, 1985; and
Provided, that notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when the final report of the Committee is completed, the Committee shall report its findings by depositing the said report with the Clerk of the House and it shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF	THE	HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr.	Speaker,	first	I	would	like to designate
Friday, November 8, 1985, as the second allotted day for the Supply period ending December 10, 1985.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1985-86 REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE

['Agreed.']
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 64, I move, seconded by the Honourable the President of the Treasury Board that the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, tabled earlier this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House.
Because the list is rather long, and there is a detailed allocation of the Supplementary Estimates to the committees, if it is agreeable to the House, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.
I should point out that I have sent a copy of this motion to my colleagues, the House Leaders of the other Parties, so that all Parties could familiarize themselves with the proposed motion and we could save the time of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Prsident of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 laid upon the table earlier this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture Votes 15b and 30b To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications Votes 5b, 10b, 45b, 50b and 60b Secretary of State Votes 15b, 20b, 25b and 50b To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes lb, 5b, and 10b To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Finance Votes 10b, 30b and 35b
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Agriculture Votes 35b, 40b and 45b Environment Vote 15b Fisheries and Oceans Vote 10b
To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs
National Health and Welfare Votes 10b, 25b, 35b, 40b, 55b and 70b To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs nd Northern Development Votes 15b, 20b, 25b, 30b, 45b and
50b
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice Votes lb, 10b, 40b and 45b Solicitor General Votes lb and 25b
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration Employment and Immigration Votes 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b and 25b Labour Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b and L25b To the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services Parliament Vote 5b
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Consumer and Corporate Affairs Vote 1 lb Governor General Vote lb Supply and Services Votes 10b and 15b Privy Council Votes lb and 5b Science and Technology Vote lb Parliament Vote lb
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works Energy Mines and Resources Votes 5b, 20b, 35b, 45b and 50b Public Works Votes 35b, 40b and 45b To the Standing Committee on Regional Development
Regional Industrial Expansion Votes lb, 10b, 16b, L26b, 45b and 51b To the Standing Committee on Transport Transport Votes lb, 20b, 80b and 110b To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs Votes lb, 15b, 20b and 30b


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that Question No. 435 will be answered today.


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the Government, were any mail boxes in the Town of Prescott, Ontario recently removed from street corners and, if so (a) what is the name and job designation of the highest authority who made this decision (b) on what date was the decision made (c) on what date (d) how many?
2.	Were the residents of Prescott given any prior notice of the decision to remove the boxes and (a) if so, by what means (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Will consideration be given to re-install the mail boxes?
4.	Do the residents of Prescott receive door-to-door mail delivery and, if not, are there any plans to provide such a service?
November 6, 1985

5.	What is the cost per year charged to individual residents of Prescott for post office boxes and what are the reasons for this charge?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: The Canada Post Corporation
informs me as follows:
1.	No street letter boxes have recently been removed from the Town of Prescott, Ontario.
(a), (b), (c) and (d) However, nine street letter boxes were removed from the Town of Prescott in December, 1983 as part of a continuous process of review which had resulted in the adoption in 1982 of an Ontario Region Cost Reduction Plan. Street letter boxes are not normally provided in communities not served by letter carriers.
2.	Notices informing the public were placed on all boxes three weeks prior to removal.
3.	Re-installation of boxes at this time would be inappropriate.
4.	The residents of Prescott and its environs are served by one of the following modes of delivery, general delivery, lock box or rural route delivery. The three modes of delivery now employed are the most cost effective and are adequate ones to serve this and other similar communities.
5.	The rate structure that the Corporation applied to post office box customers in Prescott is identical to that in the rest of Canada since a universal rate is in effect. The fee charged for a box is dependent on two factors: the size of the box rented, and the type of alternate service available to the customer renting the box.
The Corporation's rates are as follows:
Category of Customers
Dimensions	Customers with Access to Delivery by Letter Carrier, Rural Route, Group Box, and Mail	All OtherBox Size	of Box	Courrier Service	CustomersA	127mm
.3mm	$25.40	$ 6.74B	127mm
mm	$50.88	$13.48C	127mm
.5mm	$76.32	$20.22D	266.6mm
.5mm	$96.46	$33.71[English]


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?
Criminal Code


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (lotteries), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the Parties and I think you will find a disposition to allow the following motion to be brought forward by unanimous consent, presented and passed without debate. The motion is as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when the Order of the Day for the second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (lotteries), is called and is disposed of this day, it shall stand referred to a Committee of the whole; and
Provided that not later than the end of the time provided for the consideration of Government Business this day, the Speaker shall interrupt, if necessary, any proceedings then before the House and shall put forthwith, and successively without further debate or amendment, all questions necessary to dispose of the then remaining stages of the said Bill.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say on behalf of my colleagues that we will, of course, give the necessary unanimous consent. However, I must confess that I would prefer us to have arranged among ourselves that the Bill be disposed of during the course of the day. I do not think it is necessary all the time for us to formalize these arrangements in a motion. I hope that among the three House Leaders we will be able to reach some understanding to allow legislation to be dealt with, without the necessity of a motion being put to the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my dilemma is simply this. The House Leader the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray) prefers that I give prior notice in writing with respect to understandings we reach as far as possible.


Ian Deans: All right.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On the other hand, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) prefers the more informal procedure. I am equally friendly with both House Leaders and I am going to try and be Solomon-like in this dilemma and try to do my best to get a consensus.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, since I feel somewhat aimed at in the remarks-


Ian Deans: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), I would point out that it is understandable that I cannot always be on top of all these issues because 1 do not attend the meetings of House Leaders. However, I am often called to give my agreement to these things. I do not do that

November 6, 1985
Criminal Code
unless I know what I am talking about. I did consult with the President of the Privy Council before and I agreed to this procedure today.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 take it there is unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Hnatyshyn) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Jelinek, for Mr. Crosbie, moves that Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (lotteries), be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the Government of Canada to make a few comments on Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Criminal Code regarding lotteries. It was just over one year ago that I began negotiations with provincial lottery Ministers, asking them to contribute $100 million towards this Government's commitment to the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary. In return I proposed, on behalf of the Government of Canada, that we would amend the Criminal Code, which would in effect put into legislation the 1979 lottery agreement giving the provinces sole jurisdiction over lotteries and other specific gaming operations. I am happy to announce again that on June 3, 1985, the federal and provincial Governments concluded and signed an agreement incorporating the $100 million funding. The Bill we are discussing today is the result of that agreement.
The provisions in the Code are very complex, perhaps as complex as some tax statutes. At times their meaning must be discovered with the help of lawyers or the courts. For years uncertainties in the law have existed. This resulted in the launching of law suits by each Government over the proper interpretation of the present law, and the rights and responsibilities of each level of Government concerning the operation of lotteries and other gaming activities. These legal battles led to ill feeling between federal and provincial Governments, and diverted public resources to needless court battles. When this Government took office, it decided to put an end to unproductive federal-provincial wrangling and embark upon a course of action which would achieve mutual agreement among the two levels of Government for the public benefit.
One of the provisions of the June agreement provided for consultation with the provincial Ministers responsible for justice. Since that time, officials of the Department of Justice and their provincial counterparts have consulted each other concerning other changes to the Criminal Code consistent with the substance of the proposals contained in the agreement. The negotiations concerning funding for the Calgary Olympics provided an opportunity for achieving mutual federal-provincial reconciliation of these outstanding legal issues. Therefore,
the agreement included proposals for both out of court settlement of outstanding federal-provincial litigation, and clarification of the legal rights, powers and responsibilities of each level of Government.
I would like at this time to detail for the benefit of the House the exact nature of the amendments proposed in the Bill which would achieve that clear clarification I justs mentioned. The repeal of Section 188.1 of the Criminal Code would end the legal authority of the federal Government, and the Governments of one or more provinces which have entered into an agreement jointly with the federal Government, to operate and manage sports pool betting. As the House knows, one of the first Acts of this Government when it took power was to dismantle the administrative structure of the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation. You will recall that this corporation was at that time losing some $1.5 million a week of taxpayers' money, not to mention creating a federal-provincial irritant which went way beyond the scope of already existing irritants between the two levels of Government. The present amendment would legally kill the ability of the federal Government to restart the operation of federal sports pools by any new Crown corporation.
As I mentioned, in 1979 the then Conservative Government agreed with the provinces that it would no longer operate federal lotteries. However, that agreement was not put into legislation. The proposed repeal of Section 190(l)(a) of the Criminal Code now would go further in preventing the federal Government from restarting the operation of federal lotteries. These two amendments would thereby remove the legal authority for the federal Government to operate sports pools, lotteries and other gaming activities. Such activities would only be permitted under direct provincial management and control, or under the operation of other persons such as boards of fairs or religious or charitable organizations, in accordance with a licence issued by the province. That, of course, is already taking place in a number of our provinces. Furthermore, this Bill would extend the privileges that agricultural fairs enjoy now to include any fair or exhibition with regard to the running of games. In other words, this Bill is legislating what is already in effect so far as the laws of the provinces are concerned, as well as putting into legislation the 1979 agreement between the federal and provincial Governments.
For many years Canadian companies have been highly regarded for their expertise in matters related to technology and printing. One of the amendments in this Bill will include the expansion of that expertise because it has been sought world-wide. This Bill now permit Canadian companies to export materials related to lotteries and gaming, thus adding another dimension to our export package.
For many years as well the definition of lotteries has been a contentious point. This Bill fully clarifies the term "lottery" in a clear and concise manner. In addition, the proposed amendments in this Bill clarify what types of lotteries and gaming activities the provinces may operate and conduct.
November 6, 1985

I think it is clear from what I have said that this Bill clarifies a number of uncertainties that existed within the law. In addition, it gives a clear legislative recognition to past and present provincial activities, and also puts some very clear restrictions and bounds on what is and what is not permissible. Accordingly, given the state of the current law and the judu-cial interpretion of it, the proposed Bill does not promote an expansion of gambling. I think it is very important for Members to understand that this Bill does not promote the expansion of gambling, but rather sets some realistic and clear standards of what is permissible.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this Bill is long overdue. It certainly spells out in black and white a much clearer picture of lotteries and associated games in Canada and transfers to the provinces the lottery rights, which was the intention of the Progressive Conservative Government in 1979.
I would like to add my thanks to all of those who participated for eight or nine months in the very long and tough negotiations in order to bring the agreement to a conclusion in June. This agreement will provide the federal Government with $100 million of non-tax revenues from the provinces. It will eliminate the irritant which existed between the provinces and the federal Government and has, therefore, opened the door to creating much better federal-provincial co-operation in other areas. I would particularly like to thank all the people in the Department of Justice who worked from the federal standpoint. Most important, I would like to thank the provincial Ministers responsible for lotteries for making this Bill a reality.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-81. I learned only a few minutes ago about the business of the House this afternoon.
To put the Bill in context, let me say that I believe it evolved from the sports pool lottery which was in operation during the previous administration. That particular mechanism to generate funds for the Calgary Winter Olympics was a noble one because it recognized the need to generate enough funds to make the Olympic Games a success. When we talk of the Olympic Games we are talking about an international event in which the world-wide sporting community will be involved. Therefore, it is important that the Olympic Games be a success.
The previous Government committed itself to a contribution of some $200 million. I am pleased that the present Minister has been able to secure $100 million from the provincial Governments as well as set up a coin program which will generate between $30 million and $50 million.
There are a number of important factors that are generated by this particular piece of legislation which the Minister failed to address. First, he had given us a commitment that the provinces would be contributing upward of half of the $200 million commitment. At the time the promise was made it was an unqualified commitment that the provincial Governments would consider it as part of their mandate to participate with
Criminal Code
the federal Government in staging this international event. Now we learn that that support is qualified, that the provincial Governments want something in return for the portion that they will donate to the Olympics rather than saying that as provinces they have an obligation to work in partnership with the federal Government to help stage the Winter Olympics in Calgary. Their support was dependent upon the piece of legislation which is before the House today. Is it fair and proper that the right to run lotteries or maintain mechanisms to generate funds for sporting activities should be given to the provinces without any assurance that the moneys generated by the provincial Governments will be directed back into the sports field?
Another thing which the Minister failed to outline was how the remaining portion of the $200 million will be financed. As I mentioned at the outset, we have approximately, depending upon the figures used, $130 to $140 million of the $200 million commitment. There has been no information forthcoming from the present Minister since his appointment in September as to how the shortfall will be picked up. There is no firm commitment on how much money will be generated by the coin program and, therefore, Canadians, those organizing the Olympics and the athletes themselves, do not know how or if the rest of the moneys will be raised.
There is also very little information, if you put aside the previous argument, on how the $100 million to be contributed by the provincial Governments will be shared. Canadians from the various provinces are asking themselves how the split of the $100 million will be arranged. That is an important consideration when one realizes that some provinces are not in a position to contribute on a proportional basis. I would have appreciated it if the Minister had taken the opportunity to elaborate on the splitting up of the provincial contributions. I think it is unfair for a have-not province, if I may use that term, to contribute the same proportional amount as Alberta or Ontario would contribute.
As I mentioned at the outset, I do not completely agree with the concept of removing the lottery business from the federal domain and saying that it is only for the provinces. I believe that the present Minister shares my feelings on that. In the Calgary Herald of September 20 he is quoted as saying, in relation to the sports pool program: "We need to come up with a different funding system and that will be a priority". I think that is very important, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister and the Government talk about eliminating a program, about modifying a piece of legislation and about the federal Government abandoning on area, then it is incumbent upon them to say also what will be replacing that system.
In this case sports organizations and interests that have used sports pools to generate funds for sporting activities and are seeing the rights to those pools given to the provinces without any guarantee that funds will be pumped back into the federal sports scene will want to know where they are left. Quite often when Governments tighten the purse strings, as the Government has done, it is inevitable that sportings and cultural activities take a beating and experience very severe financial

November 6, 1985
Criminal Code
restraints. The sporting community ought not to be treated in that fashion. If we are going to delegate away an element that generated funds for the sparting community, it has a right to know with what that element will be replaced. The Minister has an obligation to say that we are abandoning the sports pool and replacing it with another mechanism which it is felt will in fact address the needs of the sporting community. It was the same case in 1979 when the then Prime Minister made an agreement with the provinces to abandon the lotteries field and give a monopoly to the provinces. Was that a fair deal?
I am not suggesting that we should be at war with the provinces, but if we are looking at the sporting constituency, as the Minister obviously should, then we should be speaking for that constituency. In 1979 the federal Government gave away the lottery area which was generating moneys, some of which was to be used in the sporting community. The Government gave away a $200 million plus industry in return for a simple $35 million share. The loser in that deal is the sporting community.
The idea of a lottery or a sports pool is not foreign nor very difficult to understand within the sporting community. Quite often there are Members in the House of Commons who shun lotteries and question whether they are really a hidden tax on individuals who play lotteries the most. They say that some studies have shown that the people who use lotteries the most tend to be in a lower or moderate income bracket.
However, the Canadian Olympic Association has clearly been on the record as endorsing the former sports pool corporation and endorsing lotteries as a way of generating funds for the Canadian Olympic Association. It is also a concept that is not foreign to other countries when considering ways of generating funds for amateur and professional sporting activities. The sports pool or lottery at the federal level which helped to support federal sports initiatives was not totally unique in this country. Many countries in the world have mechanisms which may not be called lotteries or sports pools but which are similar to our lotteries and are used to generate funds for sporting activities.
The sports community in this country is suffering from a lack of financial resources. I cannot think of any better example of that severe financial handicap facing sports organizations than our national soccer team. Last September, the Canadian soccer team qualified for the World Cup soccer tournament for the very first time in Canadian history. They have been attempting to reach the international finals for 28 years and finally, last September, the Canadian soccer team was able to fulfil that very impressive and nationalistic goal.
There was great applause and much back-slapping and congratulations for the men and women who made that victory possible. However, let us look at the condition facing the national soccer team and its players now. I was shocked to read in the Toronto Corriere Canadese newspaper, the reality of the national soccer team and its players. It was pointed out in that article that the captain of the soccer team and his
family as well as seven other colleagues and families of the seventeen member team were living on unemployment insurance. They did not have a full-time job because they had to train and there were no training funds available, to date, for these players and coaches.
That condition is an embarrassment and should not exist. Yet they do not receive any money. I am told that the only money forthcoming will not be until January when the official training period begins for the national soccer team. The amount of money to be given to the 17 players and coaches is still to be determined. It will largely depend on the generosity of the private sector.
Moreover, it was also reported in that article that part of the team is training in Vancouver and the remaining portion is training in Toronto. Our national soccer team will be playing against the best teams that the world has to offer. It will be in Mexico being watched by the world. Yet part of the team is training in Vancouver while the remaining portion must train in Toronto. The reason for that is that we do not have the necessary funds to bring all the players and coaches together at the same time on the same field. The players are probably not questioning this publicly because they are likely playing from the heart right now. However, if they are honest with their feelings I am sure that they and other Canadians are asking how they can compete against the best teams in the world when their team cannot even be on the same field in order to train together.
I believe that is unfair. I suggest that other teams in the world that will convene in Mexico are receiving not only moral support but financial support from their Governments at all levels. They are receiving financial support both directly and indirectly.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 believe that we are discussing Criminal Code amendments. 1 have listened with interest to the typical misinformation coming from the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), but I am wondering whether it should be noted that we are discussing Criminal Code amendments as proposed in the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has the floor.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. During his speech the Minister stated that this Bill certainly had its roots in the previous sports lottery Bill. The purpose of the sports lottery was to aid sports and I am talking about sports. It is one thing for the Minister to be defensive but he should get up on a proper point of order.
I am not misinforming the House of Commons because the information which I shared with Members in the House is true. Perhaps he should check with the captain of the national soccer team. We will then see who is misinforming and misleading the House.


Mr. Mantha:: What about the hockey team?
November 6, 1985


Sergio Marchi: The Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha) asks about the hockey team. We all know that Moe is a great hockey player but we are talking about soccer at the moment.
Before the Minister rose on his point of order, I was about to say that other countries are supporting their national teams. They do this directly through the funding of national sports federations and also indirectly through lotteries. Some of the proceeds from these lotteries are channelled into the sporting community.
The problem with our present system is that the sporting federations are not permitted to give moneys to teams which may be classified as professional. I believe we should adopt a more progressive, moderate and contemporary approach in dealing with our teams and athletes because, frankly, the situation facing our national soccer team, as a refletion of what is happening to other bodies in this country, is undignified.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is supposed to televise 42 of the 50 games to take place in Mexico. It will televise all three Canadian games in the first round. In order to perform well, we cannot simply rely on the good heart of the soccer players. We must rally behind the sporting community and this team in particular, and while providing that moral support we must also recognize that they must be trained properly in order to be competitive with the other countries.
Let us not take a back seat to anyone. Let us go to Mexico and expect to do well on the field. Let us go with the other teams from other countries and let us not be a laughing stock or an embarrassment in the way we treat our players and teams. Not many countries, even those less well off, treat their players and teams in the kind of a degrading manner.
I highlight that in trying to illustrate to this House and the Minister that the whole concept of federal lotteries and a federal sports pool should not be shunned or cast off quickly to appease provincial Governments. Yes, we should be at peace with our provincial Governments but we should also be doing things that will fulfil, be effective and positive for the national will. If there is a national will to see a national sports mechanism that will function and do honour to our athletes, then we need to fulfil it whether or not the provincial Governments like it. There is no guarantee in this legislation that moneys generated now or in the future to aid sports organizations and national sports teams will be fulfilled. That is the irony of this Bill. That is the irony of this Minister who is speaking on behalf of his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). It is fine to look at the Bill from a legal point of view, but the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) also has a sports constituency to defend. He should be defending the principles that are not in this Bill but should be.
The Government has said: "We are getting out of the lottery business and out of the sports pool business. We are shipping that business to the provincial Governments and they will be
Criminal Code
happy". That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice can get up and do that because he may not be sensitive to the intricacies of the sporting community but the Minister of Sports should be sensitive and probably is because he comes from that milieu. Therefore, I am somewhat surprised that the sporting community has been abandoned in the lotteries debate. We should not simply see the lotteries as evil and dark things. If they are run properly and if they can generate funds that can be donated to sports organizations without draining the Treasury, what is wrong with that? Around the world we see sports organizations benefiting from the resources that can be drawn upon from sports pools or lotteries.
We should be relooking and rethinking, although it might be a touch too late, at what this Government is doing. There should be a commitment at least from the provinces that, if they are to run the lotteries, some of the moneys intended to assist the sporting community will still be met. I have my doubts about that, Mr. Speaker. It is an unfortunate circumstance for our sporting community. It might be a victory in the Government's eyes for federal-provincial relations but I think that, to a certain degree, it is a cop-out to regional or provincial whims at the detriment of what should be a central and a national vision in this legislation.
We should be thinking not only about the Olympics in Calgary-which this Party, this Parliament and every single Member will rally around and do everything to make it the best Olympics ever-but also we should be talking philosophically about the move we have just made. Just because there has been a unanimous agreement to send this Bill forth in one day we should not laugh it off because there are serious repercussions and a philosophical bent undermining it. A national lottery, sports pool, or call it what you will, to aid sports groups and national professional teams is not wrong.
I hope somehow we can derive commitments from provincial Governments. They will now have a virtual monopoly on the lottery business. If the federal Government says it is wrong to be in the lottery business, why is it right for the provincial Government to be in the lottery business? If you disagree with lotteries, let us make lotteries illegal. We are saying somehow that lotteries are wrong, yet provincial Governments are able to run them.
There are some very serious inconsistencies in the Bill which displease me and I am sure they displease the sporting community. It was hopeful that some guarantee of funds, if lotteries are to exist and be permitted in Canada, would be made. That is not the case here, and I regret it very much.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join in the debate on this Bill. It is a privilege because the critic in my caucus for fitness and amateur sport, to which this Bill relates, is my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). Illness has confined my friend to his home in the riding. Consequently, this afternoon, as the person in our caucus who spoke to the sports pool wind-up Bill a year ago less two days, I have the opportunity to speak for our caucus as the first speaker with regard to this

November 6, 1985
Criminal Code
Bill which makes certain amendments to the Criminal Code to legislate and set in statute form the consequences of agreements which the Conservative Government reached. These were initially arrived at in 1979, and the Conservatives chose to implement them as soon as they formed the Government in late summer, 1984.
In speaking to this Bill, Mr. Speaker, I will be taking a stance of support for the Bill. I do that in a carefully defined way because it expresses support for the principle that the federal Government is removed from gaming activity in Canada. By this change in the statute law, the Government declares that it will not embark on any endeavours like Loto Canada, which was authorized in the mid-1970s, and the sports pool Bill, which was undertaken in 1982-83. That action, of removing the federal Government from gaming activity, is supported by members of my caucus who regard it as a desirable action.
I recognize that the clauses before us in Bill C-81 provide for other gaming activities to continue in Canada, particularly those in which the provinces, through a number of lottery corporations, are now largely embarked upon. That those clauses are in the Bill gives me considerable cause for unease.
Support for the Bill is partial. The Bill reprints sections of the Criminal Code which are not being changed. The fact that they are in the Bill is the focus for the unease I am expressing.
I want to say something about this matter of gaming and lotteries on which the Government of Canada allowed the provinces to embark and which the Canadian Government in 1978-79 attempted to get into more actively in trying to establish Loto Canada and later the sports pool.
The fact that the Canadian Government was prepared to consider gambling money as a support for fitness and amateur sport activities, for cultural activities and conceivably even for the funding of medical research, gave all Canadians concern about morality. The social implications of this Government action gave very real cause for concern.
I suggest that these are all important areas of activity. I think we would concede that immediately. I doubt whether there is a person in the country who would doubt the importance of medical research. There are people who would have varying assessments of the importance of cultural activity or, for that matter, of fitness and amateur sport, but I would expect most Canadians to place a fairly high value upon these activities. Given that there is this agreement among Canadians about the importance of such endeavours, it is my conviction and that of my colleagues that those activities deserve to be supported by the consolidated revenues of the country and by a proper tax system. Governments should not, in any way, shape or form, be involved in supporting these endeavours by calling upon non-tax revenues.
Given that kind of position, the Government is putting before us today, as it put before us in the sports pool wind-up Bill, a Bill that is only to be supported because of its half-way nature. What one wanted, in fact, was for the Government to
concede that gaming is not a good thing, and to ensure that the provinces as well got out of the activity and that the provincial Governments and the federal Government used a sound tax system to generate the revenues to support these important endeavours.
It may be worth saying, in some expansion on that, that this point deserves to be underscored for fitness and amateur sport. I suspect that there are people who regard that as, in some way, a luxurious activity. I am not sure whether I am finding the right words for it, but they do not regard it as an important thing in the mainstream of our life with which Government should be directly involved. They do not appreciate the importance of supporting amateur sport properly and ensuring in our fitness programs that Canadians use their leisure well. The Government has a real stake, which certainly extends to the health of the participants and to the increasing health of the Canadian public. It actually exceeds that and involves the well-being, far beyond physical health, of the Canadian population. Given the importance that one can place on the Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, it is all the more important that both aspects of that Ministry be properly supported. It is imperative that the consolidated revenues of the country be adequately called upon to support all these activities.
For that reason, the decision of the Governments, at either level, federally or provincially, to call upon gaming revenues or the results of lotteries to support these activities creates a sense of their own improper evaluation of these activities and represents something to which I am deeply opposed. I think that feeling is shared by all members of my caucus.
The fact of the matter is that others, including Ministers of the present Government, feel quite the same way. Perhaps I could drop back for a moment and note that when I spoke on November 8, 1984, I used a statement by one of the venerable members of my Party, who was then the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Knowles, whom we have the pleasure of seeing at the Table frequently in the chair which he now holds by action of the last Parliament. I quoted the following statement of Mr. Knowles:
It is because we believe that physical fitness, amateur sport and recreation are important aspects of Canadian life that we think they should be financed out of general taxation and, therefore, paid for on the basis of the ability to pay.
We do not believe that aspects of life as important as physical fitness, amateur sport and recreation should be financed by gambling, which calls on the poor to pay for it, instead of taxation which is levied according to ability to pay.
That admirable statement from 1976 was echoed in the most impressive way by the Hon. Member for Halton, the present Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek). Speaking on the sports pool Bill three years ago, he said:
At the outset, I would like to say that this sports pool is nothing more than an indirect taxation by devious ways and means. It is an underhanded way of collecting money from the Canadian public because the Government has failed in its responsibility time and time again to collect it by normal means.
He added to that admirable statement of principle, to which I hold myself, the following observation:
November 6, 1985

As a former athlete 1 support anything which can be done to help amateur athletes in this country. But certainly not by establishing the phoney, sleazy programs the Government is talking about which would be taking advantage primarily of the poor people of this nation, and then misleading them with false and misleading advertising.
That, too, is clearly expressed and admirable. I hold to every word of that. Surely the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, in introducing the Bill this afternoon for debate on second reading, would agree that it is only acceptable as a half-way measure. We should be involved with getting the provincial Governments out of these activities and with ending the spreading of lottery mania across the country, particularly ending the advertising of lotteries on our television screens and on the billboards of the nation designed to arouse in Canadians hopes which are very rarely fulfilled for anyone.
I want to say something about the matter of lotteries and their continuance at the provincial level because of this halfway measure in amending the Criminal Code. We should in fact be getting out of the business altogether, at least at the provincial level as well as the federal level. The provincial Government of Ontario recently changed and, as a result, opened windows and doors and produced papers of various sorts. It has provided us with some studies on gambling which are of considerable interest.
Of course there has been discussion in recent years as to who are the participants in gambling. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) alluded to some by suggesting that it was Canadians of lower income, the poor, pure and simple, and middle-income Canadians who tended to be the buyers of lottery tickets. The extent to which some of these people purchased lottery tickets leaves one suspecting that the consequence is a reduction of standard of life for them, in the almost always vain hope that they can somehow get out of the circumstances in which they are caught and get on to the rich life which they seek. The reports which were done for the Lottery Corporation in the Province of Ontario certainly underscored that reality. In one case they indicated that in fact it was groups of Ontarians of the sort I have been describing who tended to be the larger purchasers of lottery tickets.
Another study suggested that lottery ticket buyers were more poorly regarded by the public than they should be, and that an advertising campaign was in order to improve the image of those who were gambling. I do not know whether in fact those studies were behind the advertising campaigns to which we have all been exposed and to which I alluded earlier.
I should like to refer to two of the advertising campaigns in this province. There was the "Home, James" series, if I can call it that, which pandered to all kinds of desires for luxurious acquisition by our fellow citizens. The other campaign focused on a druggist in a particularly homey store, an aunt and her niece and the young clerk who works in the drugstore. Those two campaigns were designed to improve the image of the lottery buyer.
Enormous amounts of money have been spent on those advertising campaigns for television time and billboards. A
Criminal Code
great deal of money was spent on the series this summer that encouraged us all to continue buying lottery tickets while on vacation. All of these campaigns were designed to encourage our fellow citizens to gamble with the conviction that they are going to strike it rich and break out of their poverty and that they would finally enjoy all that their hearts had desired for years.
That kind of advertising is designed to drive people into a never-never land. The possibilities of winning a lottery are extraordinarily low in most cases. There is in fact much more chance of being struck by lightning, and in fact even being struck by lightning a couple of times, than there is of winning a lottery, according to statisticians. Given the small number of people who win, it arouses false hopes to appeal to people to buy tickets in the hope that they will be able to enjoy the kind of life that is held out to them in that series of advertisements.
The fact that advertisers believe that listeners are susceptible to these appeals says a great deal about the circumstances in which many of our fellow citizens are caught. I think we might as well recognize that for some years now, the lives of many Canadians have been lives of depression. During the high interest days of the early 1980s and even earlier, many Canadians were unemployed, caught on social assistance and found themselves without any significant meaningful place in society beyond what they were able to create in family and with friends and community. Given that sense of the hopelessness of breaking out and getting ahead, even for those who were employed in low-paying jobs with very little hope, it is understandable that an advertising appeal that suggests the possibility of prosperity, affluence and luxury would have some appeal to our fellow citizens.
There is something almost diabolical about the fact that the Government helped to create the depressing situation in which Canadians found themselves while at the same time pandering to them by advertising campaigns designed to suggest to them that there was a possibility of getting out of this depression by buying lottery tickets. A social illness is developing and Governments are playing a large part in supporting this. Unfortunately, this Bill which gives the provinces the monopoly on lotteries does nothing to end that.
At the time when Governments are very sensitive to the privacy of citizens, there has been very little protest about one of the most curious features of the lottery system, which is that winners effectively forfeit their privacy and anonymity. They stand revealed before the nation as suddenly wealthy people. There has been very little protest about the demand of the lottery associations that winners identify themselves and stand before television cameras revealed as the sudden possessors of half a million, a million, or in very few cases several million dollars. That particular violation of the privacy of people who have attempted by buying lottery tickets to break out of their straitened circumstances seems to me a curious contradiction on the part of Governments that are so concerned about the privacy of individual Canadians.
My comments on the effect gambling has had on our society and the social malaise to which it relates are, it seems to me, of
8422

November 6, 1985
Criminal Code
very great importance. It is a matter to be regretted by any Government that is really concerned about achieving the kind of social order and public policy to which I and my colleagues are committed.
There is another aspect to the matter of what gambling fosters in citizens which is worth considering. We recognize that the use of lottery moneys for public purposes including fitness and amateur sport is designed to compensate for the Government's unwillingness to use consolidated revenues for that purpose. In looking to consolidated revenues as a basis for supporting these important activities, we do in fact want those revenues to be based on a sound system of taxation.
I do not think it is all that much of a novelty any longer to suggest that the tax system of Canada has become badly imbalanced to the detriment of just the people who tend to buy the most lottery tickets. The federal tax system and, because the provincial system largely rests on the federal system, the provincial tax system as well are oriented toward the taxation of individuals and small businesses. It is of course on middle-income Canadians that the income tax system draws first. As well, poor and middle-income Canadians are hit with sales and excise taxes.
The fact is that the burden of taxation has shifted in a most remarkable way from the balance between corporate and individual income tax and the genuinely progressive individual income tax system that existed a quarter of a century ago to a system that puts an incredible burden on individual Canadians, most of whom are poor or middle-income earners. It is because we have such a tax system that the Government finds itself with the deficit it has. This Government and the preceding Liberal Governments did not have the courage or the good sense to realize that the tax system had to be brought back into balance for the good health of the country. It is for that reason that the Government believes it does not have the revenues necessary to support activities such as fitness and amateur sport through consolidated revenues. It is for that reason that the Government, which has placed this heavy burden on invididual Canadians, ends up supporting gaming activities which end up placing one more burden on poor and middle-income Canadians.
As a consequence of the policy mistakes made in the early 1970s by the Liberal Government, largely supported by the Conservative Party in opposition, people now think that the provinces have to depend on lottery income which, through negotiations, is extorted from the provinces by the federal Government for use in supporting things like the Calgary Olympic effort. It is that combination of policies and social ills to which this Bill relates. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, it goes only half-way toward actually dealing with a problem by taking the federal Government out of gaming activities.
Regarding the Bill itself, I note that certain other changes have been made to it. I would like to recognize the importance of those changes by modifying somewhat what I have just been saying in a broadly general way about gaming in this country. It seems to me that there is a limited place at the community level for raffles and similar activities. It may be a break from
the principles which I have been broadly spelling out. I have an uneasy feeling that it may be the case when it is suggested that school children are encouraged to sell tickets to some event or another, or when churches are involved in bingos, or for that matter the bingo business generally, which is used for all types of secular practices as well in many of our community. In saying that that sort of activity ought to be tolerated, we are in fact making something of a concession to the vice which I have been suggesting that gambling is. I think that is probably true in principle. However, I am prepared to concede that a little bit of this might go on.
I personally faced the question of these principles and the potential contradiction when the Lottario draw took place in my riding in the Town of Nipigon late last summer. Very soon thereafter the Nipigon fall fishing derby took place in the same community and concluded with a draw for the entry prize. In the case of the Lottario draw, given what 1 had said in November 1984 about gaming, there was no doubt in my mind that I was not going to take part in the draw in Nipigon even if it meant missing a fine chance of receiving television publicity. It simply would have been a contradiction of my principles to do that. On the other hand, to attend the concluding hours of the Nipigon fall fishing derby and to accept the honour of drawing the ticket for the entry prize was something that I was prepared to do. 1 note here that the largest prize of the three drawn was for $100, which I think is relevant to two of the changes to Section 190 of the Criminal Code which this Bill includes.
As the Minister has already noted, one of the changes is to extend to fishing gatherings the permission which agricultural fairs have had for many years to include something in the way of lotteries in their operations. Clearly, that sort of expansion would easily erase any legal doubts which there may have been about the Nipigon event, not that I think there were any.
The second change to the Criminal Code is with respect to an increase in the prize which a lottery operator in a community may receive. This is an increase to $500 from $100 and an increase in the ticket price from 50 cents to $2. I suppose both of these changes simply recognize the effect of inflation over the years. It strikes me that they are immediately relevant to the organizers in Nipigon who will now be able to increase the size of the first prize at the Nipigon fall fishing derby.
These matters of gambling activities, raffles and so forth at the local level are ones which I wanted to mention because it seems to me that we might tolerate in these cases what 1 have described as an evil in other cases. At the same time, we realize that the consequences of a provincial activity in these areas are, in fact, very great; and the way in which gambling revenues are drawn upon by the provincial and federal Governments for social purposes really smacks of poor public policy.
I must say that on one additional aspect to which the Minister referred I find myself somewhat repelled by the suggestion that Canada has developed expertise in the area of lottery operations which it can make available to others. The
November 6, 1985

way in which lotteries have expanded in the country since the change to the Criminal Code in 1969 is something of which I disapprove, as all Members will realize by now. To think that as a consequence of that change we are now skilled in the production of various materials which can be exported seems to me to be a most objectionable argument for the legislation which is before us. In fact, it seems to me to contradict what the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) said in 1983 in describing the ills of gambling activity when he referred to sleazy operations and so on. It seems to me to be quite contradictory for him to advocate in the House at this time that the results of this activity could be usefully sold to others. Surely we should not be involved in perpetrating upon others the material of this particular wrong which we are working upon ourselves.
Given the nature of my support for the Bill, a support which relates to the fact that it takes the federal Government out of gambling activity, I might say that the critical comments of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) with respect to the Government giving up this area are comments which I would entirely share if I regarded the activity under discussion here as a legitimate activity. As I said last fall, when one is giving away the store it should not be too difficult to arrive at an agreement with the recipients of it. If one surrenders a potential chunk of an operation to those who are already well established in the business, it should not really be difficult to arrive at an agreement. All of that is of course to say that this particular 1979 agreement involves a curious complex-at least when Conservatives are in opposition-of moral disapproval and desire for better relations with the provincial Governments. When the Conservatives formed the Government the moral disapproval was abandoned. They focused primarily on good, co-operative federalism and then on giving away the shop. As a result, they are left with a limited negotiating power when they turn to the provinces to obtain somewhat more. Of course, I am talking about something more of the filthy lucre which is involved in this. I shall abandon the particular point I have made here which the Hon. Member for York West has already expanded upon quite properly. I will leave that particular argument to him and take up what the Conservatives, now in government, have quite abandoned. I speak of the recognition of the social and moral consequences of gambling and the conviction that there should be an investigation of this whole matter.
This brings me to one of the other quotations which I incorporated in my comments of November 8, 1984 when I noted that the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, speaking on November 18, 1982 made a statement which I fully endorse. Given the presence of a different Minister in the House today, I suppose I shall have to direct the statement to him. The Hon. Member for Provencher said:
1 suggest to the Minister that he seriously consider setting up an all-party Committee to study the subject of lotteries and what they mean to the Canadian public, both in the immediate and long term, before this Bill is passed.
Criminal Code
The agreement among the House Leaders with respect to this particular Bill precludes me from actually insisting on anything such as that. However, it seems to the me that Ministers of the Crown who have expressed themselves very strongly as Opposition Members in quite principled, moral terms with which I heartily concur might take that suggestion from November 18, 1982 to heart and set about striking such an all-Party committee and authorize that committee to call witnesses, invite briefs and seriously consider the effects of gambling on the country.
It is something over 15 years since the Criminal Code was amended in 1969 to allow gambling on the large scale it is now. Almost into the sixteenth year now, we might very usefully have such a consideration of the question by a committee to find out what Canadians think about the advisability of such an endeavour. If Hon. Members, now Ministers of the Crown, really believe the principles they espoused in 1982 and 1983, I have no doubt they will in fact give us such an opportunity to determine what the effect of gambling is.
I will not say anything about what they feel now because this is after all an open question to which they have the opportunity of responding and demonstrating their social good sense and moral principles. I earnestly call upon Hon. Members to take such a stand and give us the opportunity to determine whether we should in fact at some early point have a further revision of the Criminal Code to strike out the power which it has now. Clause 3 with respect to Section 190 of the Act states as follows:
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Part relating to gaming and betting, it is lawful (a) for the Government of a province, either alone or in conjunction with the Government of another province, to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in that province, or in that and the other province, in accordance with any law enacted by the legislature of that province-
We might very usefully have a special committee of the House of Commons to consider whether we should in fact repeal that clause as well and remove gambling from the national scene, as it were, where it has been allowed to grow and to proliferate. Let us remove it from that scene and get ourselves back to something of the moral sense which Canadians used to feel, which in fact has been the motive of members of my own caucus, past and present, and Members of the Conservative Party when it was in opposition.
I appreciate this opportunity to conclude the matter which I had the opportunity of beginning on November 8, 1984.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (lotteries).

November 6, 1985
Criminal Code


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, I rise not to expound on the positive actions of the Bill, which I have already done and of which there are many. However, my hon. friend, the hon. Member for York West, when he responded to my comments earlier, was allowed to ramble on about matters which 1 felt were somewhat unrelated to the Bill. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that 1 rose on a point of order to bring this to the Speaker's attention but the Hon. Member was allowed to continue debate. I must, therefore, stand in my place now and respond in kind to the misinterpretation and misleading statements put by the Hon. Member.
1 am somewhat surprised because I have very often let the Hon. Member know that I have been disturbed that he has never put any questions to me in Question Period, or at other times when a response can be forthcoming. He seems to hide behind statements and press releases where a response to correct these misinterpretations can be forthcoming. When the Hon. Member is quite certain, as he was a few moments ago, that a response is impossible, then misleading words gush out of the Hon. Member's mouth like a flushed broken toilet. I know that the Hon. Member thought that there could not be a response because he was on his way out of the Chamber just a few moments ago. 1 did not want to speak behind his back and that is why I indicated to him across the floor to please stay. I would rather make my comments to his face than behind his back, which is his own practice.
The Hon. Member talked about this piece of legislation, Bill C-81, and he referred to the "noble" Sports Pool Corporation initiated by the previous Liberal Government. That "noble" Sports Pool Corporation not only went against an agreement between the federal Government and the provinces, thereby creating a major federal-provincial irritant, but it cost the Canadian taxpayers $1.5 million a week. However, the Liberal Government continued to run the Sports Pool Corporation. It went on and on. If this Government had not been formed when it was, the Sports Pool lottery would probably still be in place and would still be losing 1.5 million tax dollars a week.
That is the reason, my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I, as one of the first steps of this Government last September, closed down the Sports Pool so that we could restore the co-operative spirit in federal and provincial relations and save the taxpayers the millions of dollars which otherwise would have been lost.
The Hon. Member for York West said that he was disturbed that Bill C-81 did not spell out how the $100 million, which was the agreement signed last June 3, split the take, so to speak, from the provinces to the federal Government. 1 really have to scratch my head in wonder because nearly everything said by the Hon. Member is misleading-although 1 do not believe he is doing it intentionally. I just think he is totally misinformed. If the Hon. Member knew anything at all about what we were talking about, he would know it is the responsibility, as spelled out in the agreement of the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation to divide the profits and, therefore, the payments to the federal Government, according to the sales and profits of each province. It is not for the federal
Government to dictate to the provinces, telling them how to divide the loot, so to speak, as the Liberal Government used to do. It is up to the provinces themselves to decide as to how it is going to be done. If the Hon. Member would do his homework, he would find it is explained in the agreement which was signed between myself and the provincial lottery Ministers involved.
The Hon. Member also said that the Sports Pool was established to create funding for the Calgary Olympic Games. That is right, and it lost $45 million. The Liberals did not know how to run the country and they did not know how to run a lottery. It was probably the first Government in the history of the world which established a lottery and lost $1.5 million a week. Can you imagine that, Mr. Chairman?
Then the Hon. Member has the audacity to stand in his place, believing that no one will respond, and say: "If the Conservatives would close the Sports Pool down, how come they did not replace it with some other fund-raising event?" We closed it down in order to save the money. I, as Minister responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport, went to the private sector and I am happy to report to the Hon. Member that in the last 12 months we have raised in the tens of millions of dollars of new funds from the private sector which are geared toward our young kids in amateur sports in this country. That is what we have done.
Then he went on to say we had given away the shop to the provinces. In fact, we are saving tax dollars. In return for a portion of lottery profits we promised the provinces that they would have the lottery rights. That portion amounts to $35 million a year. That amount is tied to the CPI which rises every year, although fortunately under a Conservative Government it will not rise as quickly because inflation will be less than it would be under the Liberals. As well, I was able to sign an agreement with the provinces for an additional $100 million in return for this Bill. The Hon. Member forgot to talk about that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Stick to the Bill.


Otto John Jelinek: The Hon. Member says: "Stick to the Bill". Where was he when his back-bencher was talking about soccer?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister wants to use his 20 minutes to make a partisan speech, he is quite welcome to do it. However, we will have to make the same kind of reply. I would warn him that he does not have the reputation of being very objective in his Bills. How about addressing Clause 1 which is before us right now?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the audacity of the Member. Obviously he was not here when the Hon. Member for York West-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I was here.
November 6, 1985


Otto John Jelinek: -was speaking about soccer. 1 am responding to the matters brought up by his back-bencher.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You will have a chance on third reading to speak to that.


Otto John Jelinek: We now come to the final point of misrepresentation and misleading information from the Hon. Member for York West. That concerns the World Cup Soccer Team from Canada. He thought there would be no response. He said that this Conservative Government is not funding the World Cup Soccer Team. Do you know why we are not in a position to do so? It was the Liberal Government which created the rules and regulations in the Ministry of Fitness and Amateur Sport which would not allow us to fund professional teams. However, I have news for the Hon. Member. I am going to change those antiquated rules and regulations. The Hon. Member can talk to officials in Sports Canada who will agree with me when I say it is the rules prescribed by the previous Liberal Government which will not allow me to fund the tremendous success of our World Cup Soccer Team. As a former Olympian and member of Canada's Sports Hall of Fame, which I hope some day the Hon. Member for York West will join me in, I understand what it means for a Canadian soccer team to make it to the World Cup for the first time in our history. I know the benefits which will come back to Canada as a result. There are 2 billion people around the world who watch the World Cup championships. When a Canadian team is there it will mean a lot for Canada by way of advertising, tourism and in many other ways. It is for that reason that I am in the process of changing the antiquated Liberal rules and regulations put in place many years ago. We will change them in such a way that we, along with the private sector, will be able to support the World Cup team as they head for Mexico next year.
I just wanted to make certain that the Hon. Member stayed in the House to hear me out. I wish he would not hide behind statements which no one can respond to. I wish he would not hide behind press releases which espouse misinformation beyond explanation. I wish he would from time to time stand up in the House and have the courage to ask me straightforward questions which I would be very happy to answer.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are never here.


Otto John Jelinek: The only time he has done that is when I was not here, when I was speaking as the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism to an Italian community group. He picks that day to ask me a question. However, if you counted the number of days I am here in Question Period and compare them to the number of days he was here I will win 10 out of 10.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Chairman, just in case there are any viewers who did not turn off their television sets when the Minister got up to speak, I want to say that I am shocked and amazed that this individual is a Minister of the Crown. Notwithstanding his background, he used language and style and class befitting a rock. I am surprised he would get up in
Criminal Code
his place and speak in the manner he did. He alleged that this particular individual is misleading the House and is afraid to stand up, that he runs away and hides behind press releases. I am surprised that this comes from a so-called veteran of the House. He does not impress anyone, let alone his own back-benchers.
If he wants to talk about misleading statements, he should look at what he just said and then take a good long look at himself in the mirror. If we look at the Official Opposition questions of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, we have asked-largely through my efforts and I am not boasting because I am the critic of the two portfolios-more questions and make more statements under Standing Order 22 then the Tories did in four years in Opposition. I challenge the Minister to get up on his feet once again, if he has the courage, and challenge those statistics. We have asked more questions, made more statements and debated the issues much longer than the Government Party did in the four years it was in Opposition.
He also talked about misleading information concerning the Canadian Soccer Team. The information I gave was not misleading. It was the reality. Then he has the audacity to say that somehow we cannot give money to this soccer team as professional players because the legislation or rules do not permit us to do that. Yet this Government is dismantling everything that is good on the basis of a whim. Therefore, I am quite surprised, shocked in fact, that he stands up and suggests the things he does in this manner. When I was speaking from my place I was speaking to the sports constituency and trying to tie that into this legislation. The Minister was trying to play lawyer, which he is not, and forgetting about the sports constituency he is responsible to. That is the issue. It is not a question of a Member being afraid to face the things he has just said because I will stay here all night.
It is not a question of running away and hiding behind press releases because had he been here last Friday I would have asked him the question that I asked his colleague, the Secretary of State, who then answered that there is no statement and no Minister. 1 would love to have an entire Question Period on multiculturalism and sports. I would like to extend the Question Period by an hour if the governing Party would agree. We are not scared to discuss the issues. We are not scared to show the Canadian people the reality of the Government, and in particular the reality of this Minister because there are deficiencies in both of his portfolios. If we are to do something as Parliamentarians, it is to better those two portfolios which the Minister represents. I, as only one Member of Parliament, am attempting to do my best, as is my Party, to do that very thing. For the Minister to suggest that a Party or a Member is running away, is scared, or is misreprsenting and misleading does him no justice. It does not do him justice as a Parliamentarian because what he says is wrong, and most importantly, it does not do him any justice as the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and the Minister of State for

November 6, 1985
Criminal Code
Fitness and Amateur Sport because people want him to address the issues rather than make his friends on the backbenches laugh because it is close to five o'clock. Let us talk fact and reality. We are prepared to continue as long as the Minister wants to.
1 would like to return to this particular piece of legislation as it relates to the winter Olympic Games. The Minister talked about me suggesting that the provinces should split the lotteries in a certain way. That is not what I was saying and the Minister knows it. I was addressing the point that the provincial Governments have agreed, on a qualified basis, to give over $100 million to the Olympic Games in Calgary. I do not agree with the qualifications, but the $100 million is fine. I asked how the $100 million would be split among the provinces rather than how they are going to split the lottery profits that they will make through their grand monopoly. Is Alberta going to pay the same as Nova Scotia? Is Ontario going to pay the same as Newfoundland? Well, the Minister has now left the Chamber. Who is running away from the truth, Mr. Speaker?


Alfonso Gagliano: He is hiding.


Sergio Marchi: The Minister is quoted in the Calgary Herald of September 20 as saying: "I will come up with a different funding system. This will be a priority for me". When the Minister comes back here, if he has the courage, he can tell the House and this Member what funding system he will be replacing the sports pool or lottery business with. What is the alternative? What can sports organizations expect in terms of generating funds for them? I would also like to ask the Minister whether there is any guarantee that the lottery funds generated by the provinces are going to be channeled into the federal fitness and amateur sports world. Is there a guarantee that we do not know about? Is there a guarantee from the provinces that some of the money will be pumped into sports once again rather than allowing the provinces to use it for a variety of things?
It is just like transfer payments for education which do not get spent on education, Mr. Speaker. That is not right or fair. If moneys are designated to be used in a particular domain, they should be used for those purposes. I would like to know if there are guarantees in place that the moneys generated by the provincial lotteries will be used for sports. If there are not, then the Minister is not defending his portfolio at all.
1 would also like to ask the Minister about his personal opinion or preferences on lotteries. We sometimes hear conflicting stories from that side of the House. They say that the federal Government should not be involved in lotteries and that the Liberal Government was wrong to have been so involved. They say that lotteries are a tax on the poor and moderate income earners of the country. Yet, on the other hand, they are prepared to say that it is okay for the provinces to do it. What kind of double-talk is that? You are either in favour of it or against it. I would like to know what the Minister's personal preferences are with regard to the lottery issue.
We want to know a lot of things, Mr. Speaker. Canadians want answers. We want to know how the Minister is going to pick up the shortfall from the Calgary Winter Olympic Games. His Government committed itself to donating $200 million. There is going to be a shortfall of anywhere between $50 million and $70 million. I would like to know, as would all Canadians and athletes, where that money is going to come from. Those are just some of the questions that this side of the House, and particularly this Member as critic, would like to have answer for. I am going to stay in my place and hope that the Minister does not run away but, instead, gives us some answers.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that I finally got the Hon. Member to ask some proper questions. Most of them were answered in my initial remarks on Bill C-81, which is what we are supposed to be discussing. He got riled up, of course, because I responded to his accusations and misinterpretations in his earlier comments. He is, again, misinformed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Answer the questions for God's sake.


Otto John Jelinek: I would like to invite the Hon. Member to my office some day to teach him a little bit about what goes on in both of my ministries. Then he would perhaps be a little more informed in putting questions. He asked, for example, whether I can guarantee him that the $100 million from the provinces for which I made a deal will be directed toward amateur sport. He should be congratulating me for being able to make a deal for $100 million in return for this piece of legislation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We don't trust you.


Otto John Jelinek: The answer to his question is no.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There you go.


Otto John Jelinek: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier says: "There you go". Sergio is right because I am saying that the money is not going to be directed to amateur sports. No it will not. If the Member was informed properly he would know that this money will go toward the funding of the Calgary Olympic Games. I can guarantee him that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, I will not stay on my feet longer. I think that we have made an agreement to pass this Bill through all stages today.


Sergio Marchi: No, no. We'll keep going.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That was before you started talking.


Otto John Jelinek: Now the NDP is getting riled and I haven't even started to attack them.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister is all mixed up again. We go until six o'clock tonight so we will have
November 6, 1985

another hour of the great entertainment which he is putting forth.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Chairman, 1 am a little riled up, I suppose, as my friend in the Official Opposition has observed, because we had an agreement and it seems to me that the spirit of it has been violated. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we should return to the issue. For those purposes, 1 would like to put some comments on the record about Clause 1 of the Bill which is a general one. I would like to quote from page 26875 of Hansard of June 28, 1983, the words of the Hon. Member for Halton. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments on Bill C-95 in respect to the sports pool and motion No. 4 moved by my colleague in respect to the Auditor General taking over the accountability of this sports pool program. In fact, 1 would hope that Parliament would see fit to study the possibility of the Auditor General being accountable to this House for all Government agencies and Crown corporations, and therefore to the Canadian public.
At the outset, I would like to say that this sports pool is nothing more than an indirect taxation by devious ways and means. It is an underhanded way of collecting money from the Canadian public because the Government has failed in its responsibility time and time again to collect it by normal means. I would like to mention three examples of the devious ways in which this Government has handled the situation from the outset. On June 26, 1981 I asked a question of the then Minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport, and I will quote my whole question because it puts this whole sports pool into perspective. I said:
Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of fitness and amateur sport. When the original Olympic lottery was introduced in order to defray the costs of the Montreal Olympics, the Liberal Government at that time gave Canadians and the House its assurances that no further lotteries or gambling operations would be initiated.
That promise, as the Minister knows, has already been broken. It has now come to my attention that the Minister is well on his way to extending federal gambling programs to what is known as all-sports betting, in other words, reducing the Government to the status of bookies for betting on hockey games, football games and so on. Without once again copping out by giving a stock answer blaming the previous Government, can the minister confirm or deny whether his Government is contemplating such action?
The Member for Halton then said:
The Minister's response was:
I would inform the Hon. Member that the Government has no such plans. We do not contemplate any such scheme as the Hon. Member has mentioned. Three days later, Mr. Speaker, I produced a sample of a sports pool ticket in this House and showed it to the Minister. He had to agree that they were studying some form of gambling operation but he was not sure whether that was it and he in fact had not seen that ticket. So the Minister was either deliberately misleading the House three days earlier, or he was totally ignorant of what went on in his own Department.
To show you the devious ways and means this Government has used to handle this situation from the beginning, less than three months later, on September 14, that same Minister announced very proudly that the federal Government, the Liberals, were going to introduce a sports pool betting scheme along the lines I suggested he was planning less than three months earlier when he denied it. That is why I call it devious ways and means.
Point number two, Mr. Speaker, is advertising. We have talked about the cost of advertising sports pools and gambling operations by this Government, but there is also misleading advertising. I take you back to December 6, 1976, when I informed the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Abbott, that the ads for Loto Canada at that time were so misleading that a Canadian is twice as likely to be hit by lightning than he is to win $1 million in that gambling operation. The Minister said that he agreed there was excessive and misleading use of advertising. He said it was exaggerated optimism. He also said that he did not plan to get tough about the ads even though he considered them inappropriate, unfair and in bad taste. He said that while he did not think the ads were
Criminal Code
misleading, they tend to raise expectations in the public mind which are unjustified. He was then removed from that position and we never heard any further about any changes made in that regard. Again, an example of devious ways and means of promoting federal gambling operations.
A third point, which is probably the most important and comes to the root of this whole problem, is that lottery operations were agreed to by Parliament to defray the cost of the Montreal Olympics in 1976. There was a lot of debate about this and we received all kinds of assurances from the Liberal Government that once those costs were defrayed there would no longer be any attempt by the Liberal administration or Parliament to bring in gambling operations under sports pools or lotteries or any such nonsense. Those were outright lies by the Government at that time because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the lottery defrayed the cost of the Montreal Olympics but then the name was changed to Loto Canada and the rest is history.
When Hon. Members opposite say that we on this side do not care about helping the arts and amateur athletes, that is the furthest from the truth. As a former athlete I support anything which can be done to help amateur athletes in this country. But certainly not by establishing the phoney, sleazy programs the Government is talking about which would be taking advantage primarily of the poor people of this nation, and then misleading them with false and misleading advertising.
There are other ways to help amateur athletes in this country other than through lotteries and sports pools or indeed even large Government grants. First we should try to expand sponsorship by the private sector of amateur sports programs and the arts. We could expand the development fees which the NHL is now paying towards the development of junior hockey players. That makes sense. But we are not going far enough. What about figure skaters, as I once was? 1 spent all my time learning that sport in this country. Today the federal Government is subsidizing Sports Canada, rightly so, for the development of figure skaters and other sports, but then the cream of the figure skaters are taken away for foreign professional ice shows which do not give anything back to the taxpayer in this country to develop figure skaters. Surely there is a golden opportunity for this Parliament to go to the Ice Capades, Holiday on Ice and Ice Follies and say that every time they hire one of our skaters trained here in Canada, surely they must pay something back. The same thing is true in tennis and other professional sports.
That is an eminently sound idea which I would encourage the present Minister to pursue. The Member concludes:
These are just some of the ways and means of correcting the existing problem, whether it is on an ongoing basis for fitness and amateur sports, or specifically, as Motion No. 3 stated, that there should be funding for the Calgary Olympics.
In closing, Mr. Speaker-
This is where these comments really come to the point:
-1 just want to reiterate my total opposition to any type of lottery or sports pool.
Well said. If only the Bill did that, instead of stopping on the federal side.
I think it is degrading, downgrading and certainly not in the spirit of athletic sports and the Olympics.
Well said again, I would say.
If I had more time I could expand on the many recommendations available to this Parliament and the Government in order to assist the arts and amateur sports in general.
Thank you for allowing me to place these words on the record, many of them sound words and some which 1 would dispute.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, my only comment is that having heard my words repeated by Mr. Epp in the House today as I sat on this side, I can only say that I made one hell of a speech then.

November 6, 1985
Criminal Code


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Chairman, Otto talks about running away. After my hon. friend from the NDP spoke for 20 minutes, the Hon. Minister got up to say he likes the speech which he gave. Talk about courage, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to cite some quotes from the Hon. Minister. In describing the gaming operations, the Minister said in the Ottawa Citizen on September 21 that: "The operations are a tax on the poor and perhaps an immoral way of raising taxes, whatever the Government". What is his and his Government's view of the lottery business? When he describes it as a tax on the poor and a way of immorally raising taxes, does he not believe that that principle holds true whether it is the federal or provincial Government that is involved in the gaming operation?
I have another quote from the Ottawa Citizen of September 18, 1984. The Minister stated that: "A different form of gaming operation could continue after that- "referring to the dismantling of the Sports Pool:" -because clearly we have to keep our commitment to the Calgary Olympics and we will". Why is the Hon. Minister wasting the time of the House by saying that lotteries are evil and the federal Government should not be involved in them while, on the other hand, he is quoted as saying that gaming operations, sports pools or lottery mechanisms could in fact be established to raise the funds?
The Minister is obviously sending conflicting statements. On the one hand he states that it is immoral to be in the lottery business, yet he signs a monopoly in the lottery business over to the provincial Governments. He said that the previous administration was wrong in operating the sports pool and using the lottery business as a way of generating funds for sports teams. However, he is quoted as saying that once he has dismantled that pool he could perhaps begin another.
This leads me to my third question. If the former sports pool or another gaming operation was in fact making money that would help sports teams, would the Minister be in favour of such a mechanism? Would he be prepared to give it away to the provinces?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, first when my friend made reference to the speech that Mr. Epp from the New Democratic Party made and 1 did not respond to it, it was because he read my speech from a few years ago and he did not ask for a comment nor did he ask me any questions on it. I wanted to stand up and say that I thought the words Mr. Epp read were words of wisdom on amateur sport.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. I hate doing this to the Minister but he has been here long enough to know that we must refer to Members not by name but by constituency. The Minister has referred to Members by name. I know he is not here very often but let me remind him that he should follow the rules and refer to Members by their constituencies and not by their personal names.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier is correct. I am sure the Minister is aware of the rule.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Chairman, the normal practice in parliamentary standing committees and legislative committees is to refer to Members by name. We are in Committee of the Whole. Is the rule different for Committee of the Whole?


Marcel Danis: Yes. I ask the Minister to refer to Members by their constituencies which I am sure he will.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the Member for Ottawa-Vanier. That is the first thing he has said that is correct today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Stick around. I can teach you a few things.


Otto John Jelinek: I will refer to my friend as the Hon. Member for York West. In addressing his concern about my not responding to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, it is because he did not ask a question nor for a comment. I just commented on the words he read which were from my own speech.
The Hon. Member asked a couple of questions. I will take them in reverse order. He asked why we closed down the Sports Pool Corporation.


Sergio Marchi: No, I didn't.


Otto John Jelinek: He asked why we did not continue to practice the policy of the Liberal administration. I said already in this debate today on three or four occasions that besides the fact the Sports Pool was losing $1.5 million of taxpayers' money a week, it was also a federal-provincial irritant. Therefore, we felt it was wise to close it down.
It is true that while we were considering this, in answer to a question from a reporter at the time-I am talking now about 13 months ago-whether there were other options other than closing down, I said-and I cannot make a comment as to what was quoted in the newspaper-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Have you changed your mind since then?


Otto John Jelinek: I never change my mind. I said that officials of the Sports Pool Corporation said it could be revised in such a way as to be a money-making operation.
Finally, the Hon. Member asked for my personal views on lotteries. As a Minister of the Crown, my personal views are irrelevant. The views of the federal Government of the Day are that lotteries belong under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, we have acted accordingly.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is certainly correct about one thing, that all his views are irrelevant.
The Hon. Minister said that in my preceding question I asked why the Government dismantled the Sports Pool. I did not ask that question. My question was specific. If that Sports Pool, or any other sports pool or lottery, was making dollars, money that would be going to aid sports organizations, would
November 6, 1985

the Minister and the Government have dismantled that mechanism?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, first, the question is a hypothetical one. The Corporation was not making money. I could sit down right now and feel satisfied that I have answered the question but I will not sit down. We made a commitment with the provinces in 1979 that we were going to hand over, in return for $35 million a year, the lotteries to provincial jurisdiction. That is what we said in 1979. That is what we did in 1984 and what we have concluded doing today.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Chairman, the Member talked about courage, yet we do not see any courage toward letting Canadians know how the Minister and the Government will be doing things.
If we take the example of the Sports Pool and the lotteries, a method not new to other countries to help sports organizations, if we were to create that type of mechanism and atmosphere and we were making enough funds to help the sports organizations, would he be in favour of that?
Does the Minister agree or disagree with the Canadian Olympic Association which has gone on record in the debate of June 1984 and since then that it is in favour of a sports pool and lottery concept as a way of complementing any funds from the national Government to help sports organizations? Is the Minister agreeing or disagreeing with the Canadian Olympic Association in that regard?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the first part of the Member's question, which was a repeat of a question he put earlier, this time let me say his question is hypothetical. He is asking if it would have or would not have. The question is hypothetical and it does not require an answer.
As to the second part of the question, I have always considered ways and means of raising additional funds for amateur sport and how best we can go about doing that. I have concluded that the best way is to approach the private sector in a co-operative and a business-like fashion. I am very pleased to tell the Hon. Member today that I will be making a comprehensive announcement in that regard within the next few months.
In the meantime, I should let the Hon. Member know, as I said earlier, but I want to underline the fact that because of the position I have taken over the last 14 months, amateur sports has received in Canada tens of millions of new dollars from the private sector as a result of the challenge that I put out. I am delighted that the private sector has responded and responded effectively and well for the benefit of amateur sport in Canada.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport gives the impression that since he took the office of Minister he has been responsible solely for the corporate sponsorship or dollars flowing from the private sector. He should know and point out clearly, especially since he comes from the sports milieu, that the corporate sector has
Criminal Code
always picked up a good share of costs of sporting activities whether skiing, hockey, basketball or what have you. No one is denying that. I do not think it is incumbent upon any individual Member of this House to say it is because 1 am there that all the corporate sponsorships have been coming through the pipeline. 1 have talked to a number of individuals in Toronto organizing on behalf of sports and interfacing with the business community. They are quite taken aback that somehow this Minister is claiming that victory for himself and the Government.
We all know that in the past, in the present and I am sure it will continue in the future that the corporate sector will interface with Government, not only in sports, but in a wide scope of Government areas. We should encourage that. We are looking also for something a little more tangible.
The Minister in his statements and in recent accounts in the newspaper said that once we dismantle this aspect, we will be bringing in another scheme to take the place of sports bodies resources. I would like to know where that scheme is. Can he illuminate this House as to his plans? He failed to answer my other question. Does he agree or disagree with the Canadian Olympic Association which favours sports lotteries and sports pools in order to raise funds for the Olympics?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Olympic Association is free to do what it wants in respect of lotteries or any other fund-raising venues. The policy position of the Government is that lotteries are the responsibility of and fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
With regard to the private sector, it is true that there has been in the past private sector contribution to amateur sport. Amateur sport is very thankful for that, as am I.
When we assumed office just over a year ago, private sector contributions to amateur sport, in round figures, were something like 20 per cent of the total and federal Government contributions were 80 per cent. 1 am pleased to say that 1 approached the private sector on an ad hoc basis and talked consistently and constantly about trying to get more private sector involvement in amateur sport. There is a great return to the private sector. I am also a businessman, and I know from a business point of view that a corporation will not invest in anything unless there is some return. We saw the tremendous success of Canadian athletes at the Los Angeles Olympics. Stars were born. The names of amateur athletes became household words. As a result, we suddenly had a very good product to market, a product which had to be marketed in a co-ordinated fashion.
We have been working on a co-ordinated marketing strategy for past months. As I have pointed out to the Hon. Member, I hope to be announcing it in the next few months. It will be a co-ordinated effort to build upon the success which has already taken place with the private sector. It will involve a more professional, business-like and co-ordinated approach to the private sector on behalf of and in conjunction with the sports governing bodies.

November 6, 1985
Criminal Code
I should let the Hon. Member know that this is not a new idea. There have been studies done in the past. The most recent one was in 1983. A task force was formed and sent across the country to study ways and means of improving private sector involvement in amateur sport. That task force came back with specific recommendations. It indicated that by 1984, last year, if its recommendations were put in place, the funding could be on a 50-50 basis; in other words, 50 per cent from the federal Government and 50 per cent from the private sector.
In an attempt to educate the Hon. Member a little, unfortunately they did not receive the political support needed to go ahead with those proposals. They did not receive political support from the Government of the day which happened to be the Liberal Government. Had they received that support, we would already have a much higher level of corporate support and a mutually beneficial agreement between sports governing bodies and amateur sport organizations.
I am not taking credit for suddenly thinking up a new scheme of going to the private sector and saying: "This is a great, new idea". The idea is not a new one. What I am doing is providing political support, encouragement and leadership, to make certain that we can form an entity to work with the sports governing bodies and with the private sector for the benefit of amateur sport and for the benefit of taxpayers.
We are all committed to improving goals and programs and to enlarging upon the support of all amateur sports. Hopefully that will be the case with professional sports, where applicable, such as the World Cup team. We cannot continually go to the taxpayer and say: "You have to give us more". We cannot do that, and the Government will not do that. There is not a bottomless barrel of money to dig into. The Libera! Governments of the past continually dug into bottomless barrels of money, putting the country further and further into debt. We are not doing that. I will be reducing, hopefully over the next few years, federal Government support, perhaps minimally. At the same time I will be ensuring the ability to raise additional funds in such a way that we give the necessary tools to the athletes, coaches and officials. I, as Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, will not let down the World Cup team. I will certainly not let down the amateur sports body, including athletes, coaches, officials and everyone associated with them.
In fact, the Hon. Member may know, if he has been following what I have been doing, that I have just expanded and changed the funding criteria in such a way as to expand our support to domestic sports at a higher participation level. In the past the Government only supported, through Fitness and Amateur Sport, high-performance, elite athletes who were working toward winning international medals in the world championships and Olympic Games. That is very important. We will not take away anything from high-performance athletes. We will continue to support them, even to a greater extent than they were in the past. However, under my leadership, we will expand the support program so that we encourage sports governing bodies to get more Canadians to participate
in amateur sport. That will do two things. First, with an expanded and broader base for amateur sport participation in the country, we will obviously have more athletes to pick from. If we have a broader base, we will have more athletes from which to choose to develop into the high-performance area. Second, and more important, if we have more Canadians participating in amateur sport, we will have a fitter nation. As a result, hopefully, in the longer term we could start reducing some of the increases in health costs which skyrocketed under a Liberal administration to over $30 billion, not million, per year. I believe, in all sincerity, that enhanced fitness programs and expanded amateur sports opportunities, particularly for our youth and others, can be used as a form of preventive medicine, among other things, to reach the type of goals about which I have been talking.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much time of the committee. Hon. Members will know that I am a Member of Parliament from Calgary, Alberta, the home of the 1988 Winter Olympics. The people of Calgary and the volunteers who are working on the Olympics are becoming more and more excited and better and better trained. We are looking forward to the opportunity to put on a show for the entire world. It will make all Canadians prouder of our country than perhaps they are today. I pay tribute to the Minister for personally contributing to that success.
Today we have seen an example of his skills as a bargainer. He has dealt with the Provinces of Canada in the true spirit of Canadian Confederation. He has helped them reach an agreement to provide some of the funding for the Winter Olympics so that they will truly be a national event in which all provinces have participated. It strikes at the heart of the wisdom of the sew Government. Instead of dictating to the provinces what must be, it is possible under true Confederation to work with the provinces. When the federal Government and the provinces are pulling together, there are very, very positive consequences.
I urge all Hon. Members of the House to give quick and speedy passage to this particular piece of legislation. I thank Hon. Members for granting me the time of the committee and I wish the Minister well in his further work. 1 know that it will continue to be of the same high quality, with the same high quality results.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Chairman, I think the Hon. Member for Calgary West forgot to mention that that was a paid political announcement by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Because it is an issue that transcends partisanship, there is no question in the minds of Members on either side of the House that everyone in the country is anxiously awaiting the Calgary Olympics. I think the Government, the Opposition and all Canadians should do all that they can to ensure that the Olympics are going to be the success that we all want them to be. That is a given and that certainly is something apart from this particular piece of legislation.
November 6, 1985

Just before he made his closing remarks, the Minister spoke a very important mouthful. He mentioned the fact that he hopes and wants to reduce federal funding for sports organizations. That strikes me as being very odd. That is very different from what Ministers of the Crown should be advocating for their particular portfolios. It is like the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, several months ago, defended the deindexation of senior citizens' pensions. In fact, the Minister of National health and Welfare was trying to be the Minister of Finance, forgetting that senior citizens fall within his Ministerial jurisdiction. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should not pretend to be the Minister of Finance. The former Minister of the Environment made wild cuts in her budget including cuts to wildlife services. She should not be walking around proudly telling us that. The Ministers should defend their own particular Ministerial jurisdictions.
Sports organizations are no exception. Rather than defending and fighting tooth and nail to have funding restored at least to the same level it was before, the Minister is prepared and hopes to reduce funding. This is much like the Government talking about the importance of multiculturalism while at the same time reducing the budget of this small Department by nearly 9 per cent. That Department absorbed the biggest budgetary cut of any Department on Parliament Hill. Yet the Government says it is serious about multiculturalism. It cannot suck and whistle at the same time. At least most of us cannot.
I would simply draw to the attention of the Minister that I asked specifically if he or the Government were against lotteries because in 1979 when the Conservative Party governed for a very brief time, the Conservative Government made a deal regarding the lotteries that in part funded sports organizations. At the time the lottery industry was a $200 million industry. Now it is an industry worth upwards of $300 million. The Conservative Government gave that away for an assurance of $35 million. That is Tory mathematics. If the Tories agree with lotteries as a way of complementing financial resources given by the federal Government, how can they say that that is good negotiating?
Tories cannot always hide behind the argument that they want to have good federal-provincial relations. We should and we do have good federal-provincial relations. However, we should not compromise ourselves either. We should not sell ourselves short. That is exactly what the Government of 1979 did. If this Tory Government is prepared to say that it is against lotteries and sports pools because, as the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport has already said, it believes it is a tax on the poor and an immoral way of raising taxes regardless of levels of Government, and if the federal Government were to eliminate lotteries, then I could respect and appreciate the Government's position. However, the Minister has been quoted as saying that he will look at another gaming operation. If he is not prepared to say that the Government is against lotteries but still gives them to the provincial domain, then what does that say about that Minister who is supposed to be protecting his jurisdiction? If he does not mind lotteries, why would he want to give them away when
Criminal Code
a good part of the funds generated would help the very people he is supposed to represent?
Therefore, I would ask the Minister, if he is in favour of lotteries and if he is prepared to give the provinces the monopoly on lotteries, will he give the House and more importantly the sporting community his assurance that he will try to fight for the interests of the sporting community and negotiate with the individual provinces so that some of those funds can be used for the original purposes for which they were meant; namely, assistance to sports federations and organizations, be they amateur or professional?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member is getting boring. He has posed the same question four or five times. I have made the position of the Government abundantly clear. The position of the Government is that lotteries fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces. I cannot make it any clear than that.
While talking about this Bill which deals with Criminal Code amendments, the Hon. Member started to talk about multiculuralism. Yes, I am the Minister responsible for multiculturalism. Since he spoke about it, I can as well. Another example of the Hon. Member's misinformation is that the total budget for multiculturalism this year is slightly higher than it was last year. The Hon. Member once made a statement indicating that the budget for multiculturalism was reduced. It has not been reduced. The facts speak for themselves.


Sergio Marchi: The Estimates are for reductions.


Otto John Jelinek: I do not have the figures in front of me but I would be very happy to provide them to the Hon. Member. The budget for multiculturalism, under a Conservative Government, is slightly higher than it was under the previous Liberal administration.
As far as supporting and fighting for amateur sport is concerned, for goodness sake, I do not believe that amateur sport has ever had a Minister who has fought harder to try to get more for its community than this Minister. I am confident that I have done so. Amateur sports organizations are not suffering as a result of less money. They are all receiving more money because of the extra effort the Government has made in leading and encouraging the private sector to help us build on top of what the Government provides to amateur sport. 1 will never let amateur sports organizations suffer while 1 am the Minister responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
In order for me to return to debating this Bill, 1 must say that when I was able to sign the agreement of June 3 of this year which resulted in the Bill we are debating today, 1 received congratulatory letters from the President of the Canadian Olympic Association. I received congratulations from the Olympic Organizing Committee in Calgary for having done something that the Liberals were unable to do. I do not blame the Liberals because there were about six or seven Ministers in this position within a period of two or three years. That Ministry became a joke. It was known as a revolving-door Ministry. Therefore, I cannot blame the

November 6, 1985
Criminal Code
individuals who were in my position prior to me for failing to do a job on behalf of amateur sport. 1 received congratulations from the sports governing bodies and I received thanks for the support I have given them.
When I made my initial remarks regarding this Bill, I spoke in a very sincere, honest and quiet manner.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And partisan manner.


Otto John Jelinek: I did not get partisan at all. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If you would shut up and sit down, for God's sake, we could get to the Bill.


Otto John Jelinek: If he would have been here, he would have known that there was nothing partisan about the comments I made earlier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are the most patronizing Minister we have ever had, for goodness sake. Quit blowing your own horn.


Otto John Jelinek: The partisan comments came when the Hon. Member for York West started attacking me thinking that I would not respond to him. After he started attacking me with misinformation and misleading statistics, then of course I rose to respond in kind.
I am delighted that I am able to be here on behalf of the Government of Canada to bring this Bill before the House, a Bill based on a $100 million agreement with the provinces, a Bill which will assist and benefit the Calgary Olympics. As my friend, the Hon. Member for Calgary West pointed out, they will be the best Winter Olympics in the history of the Olympic Games. That does not just come from myself and from those of us closely associated with it. It comes from the great individuals within the Olympic organizing committee. I refer to the President, Frank King, the Chairman, members of the committee, the private sector which has become involved, the provincial Government which is one of the partners, the City of Calgary and its Mayor. All of these individuals in conjunction with the federal Government have worked in harmony and unity to ensure that the Olympic Games will, in fact, be the best ever.
I am pleased to announce to the Hon. Member that when Juan Antonio Samaranch, the President of the Canadian Olympic Association, was in Calgary not too long ago to review the progress with respect to the development of the games site he said that it appears that the Calgary Games will be the best ever in the Olympic movement.


Abram Ernest Epp: My concern this afternoon has been with the Bill as it relates to the Criminal Code changes involving gambling. At the conclusion of my initial comments I raised some questions about the principled stance which the Minister has taken in the past regarding gambling. It was interesting to hear the Minister come close to clarifying the question I left hanging in the exchange between himself
and the Hon. Member for York West. I would like to put this question to him. Given the high moral ground he adopted in 1983 when he spoke so strongly against the use of gambling funds for sports purposes, am I correct in understanding that he has abandoned that stance? He is very good at bandying about terms such as misleading and so on, which are only in order because he does not add the word "deliberately", although I am sure he thinks that. Someone who adopts this high moral ground is, I believe, a fit person to answer a question which is not at all hypothetical but which focuses on the realities of the situation. How far down has the Minister slid in abandoning the principles which he espoused in the summer of 1983? How acceptable is gambling now after all he has said about misleading advertising, sleazy methods and the dependence upon winnings raised from the poor of the country? Has the Minister given up all of that?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, I find it humorous that the Hon. Member says that he now knows what I am thinking. To show him my consistency with respect to my position on lotteries I will repeat what I have said six times today. The position of the Government of Canada is that lotteries fall within provincial jurisdiction. When the Hon. Member talks about my saying some years ago that there was misleading advertising, and I brought the question up to Mr. Abbott, who I believe was the then Minister responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, does the Hon. Member wish to know what the public answer was from Mr. Abbott?


Abram Ernest Epp: Not particularly. I am interested in your position.


Otto John Jelinek: I will tell the Hon. Member anyway. The then Minister thought I was right. He thought that the advertising was misleading and he took steps to change it.


Abram Ernest Epp: That does not speak for your position.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Chairman, we are not getting very many real answers to some very real questions. As my hon. friend has mentioned, these are questions which the sporting community would like to have answered. It is fine for the Minister to say that he has received congratulatory notes from the Olympic Association and from sports federations. That is great. In fact, it is almost to be expected. I will bet Hon. Members that during the time in which the previous Government was in office it received congratulatory notes from a good many parties. However, that is beside the point.
Since the Minister failed to answer the question with respect to lotteries falling within provincial jurisdiction I will touch upon the matter. Lotteries have a history of helping sporting organizations. I would like to ask the Minister why lotteries should belong in the provincial domain. I want to know the reasons. He said that they belong to the provincial Governments and I would like to know why. Since they help sporting organizations why can they not be within the federal domain? The Minister gives us many good reasons as to why these should belong within the provincial domain. Based on the
November 6, 1985

tremendous co-operation which the Minister has received from his provincial counterparts, will he ensure the sporting constituency of the country that he will go to the provinces to obtain the moneys which those lotteries will be generating and give them to the sporting organizations and federations of the country? Will he give the sporting community that guarantee? This is a very specific question which begs a very specific answer.


Otto John Jelinek: The very specific answer is that some of those funds are already being diverted to the sports governing bodies, as the Hon. Member well knows. One-half of the $35 million which comes in goes toward the sports governing bodies of the country.
In answer to his initial question regarding lotteries, I have consistently answered the question. I do not know what the Hon. Member is trying to get at when he says that I have not answered his questions. This Government believes it is within the jurisdiction of the provincial Governments. Historically, that goes back to the development of the first Olympic Lottery. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon read into the record part of a speech I made some time ago. The House accepted a temporary Olympic Lottery to defer the costs of the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal. At that time, with the support of all three Parties, the House agreed that it would be a temporary lottery called the Olympic Lottery and that the federal Government would not get into the lottery business. Of course, we were misled by the Liberal Government. No sooner did we pay off the federal Government's share of the Olympic deficit in Montreal the Liberal Government changed the name of the Olympic Lottery to Loto Canada. An Hon. Member from Montreal points out that the deficit has never been paid off. That is true.
The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon has already read word for word what I said about the subject in the House some years ago. At that time the House unanimously agreed that lotteries were not meant to be part of the federal jurisdiction. When we took ofice in 1979 we signed an agreement with the provinces giving them the right to run lotteries. This was in return for a certain sum of money which now amounts to over $35 million a year. Much of the money which the provinces keep goes toward the development of amateur sports in those particular provinces. Today, under my leadership, no one can say that they are receiving less money in terms of what they receive from federal Government contributions and the private sector. In fact, what they must say is that there is more money available for amateur sports today than there was ever before and that fewer tax dollars are being used for this purpose.


Sergio Marchi: The Minister goes back to the deal of 1979 where again, according to Tory mathematics, he exchanges some $300 million in return for $35 million and then he says that half of that $35 million would be used for sports. Of the greater share of the moneys which are being generated by the lotteries across the country, can the Minister provide us with some figures as to what the provincial Governments are spend-
Criminal Code
ing on sports? Does the Minister really have a control over what the provincial Governments dedicate to the sports area? The Minister laughs but it is important because the provincial Governments, from those lotteries, have more moneys at their disposal to put into sports than the federal Government. Therefore, it would be incumbent on the Minister, and logical, if the Minister knew how the greater share of the moneys were being spent.
Would the Minister be prepared to give us statistics or numbers as a way of assuring Canadians, and the sporting community, that, yes, now that he has given away the lotteries to the provincial Governments, those Governments are in fact putting the moneys into the same areas as would this Government if it controlled the lotteries?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, I did not laugh. I was smiling because the questioning by the Hon. Member is becoming more ridiculous all the time. The Hon. Member is now suggesting that we should have control over what the provinces do with their lottery process. That is the type of Liberal confrontation which existed in the past. That is not what exists now. There is no confrontation existing between this federal Government and the provincial Government.
Surely the Hon. Member is not suggesting that this Government should dictate to the provinces as to how they should spend their revenues, whether from taxes or from lotteries, for goodness sake. I cannot believe that the Hon. Member would even pose such a question.
With respect to statistics of how much of those funds generated from provincial lotteries go toward amateur sports, I believe that is public knowledge in each individual province.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is an illegitimate question whatsoever. If the Minister was prepared to stand up on his feet and courageously say that he and his Government are against lotteries, I could respect and appreciate that. However, if we have a money-making mechanism which is to be used to aid sports organizations, that is to be used to take away some of the pressures on our federal coffers, and if the mechanism is doing that, surely to God, that is positive. However, in taking that mechanism, as a federal Minister, and giving it to the provinces, as is now being done, is the Minister suggesting that somehow he is a good Sports Minister? Is the Minister trying to suggest to me that that is in good defence of his Sports Ministry? The Minister cannot rise in this House as the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and say that he is taking a mechanism, which is in part going to help sports, and giving it to the provinces, and then say, "I don't know what is going to happen. I cannot tell the sports people how to run their business in the individual provinces."
The Minister sure can, for goodness sake, tell the provinces in a kindly way if he is afraid to bruise some of his Conservative colleagues at the provincial level. He should try in the best way possible to get those moneys going into the sports coffers where they went before.

November 6, 1985
Criminal Code
If the Minister enjoys the co-operation of his provincial colleagues, then why is he scared to go to the provinces and tell them, "We gave you a $300 million, $400 million industry. We are getting in return $35 million. Can you try, please, to help the sports organizations which would have received that if we hadn't given it to you?" But the Minister will not be responsible. He tells us he gave it to the provinces, he does not know what the statistics are, and to go and check for ourselves.
I ask the Minister if that is responsibility to his sports jurisdiction. I think not. I am not telling the Minister to go out and do war with the provinces but, for goodness sake, if he is prepared to take a sports-generating funding mechanism and give it to the provinces, then why can he not go to the provinces and try to get some guarantees? If the Minister is not prepared to do that, he should not give away the mechanism.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member talks about me giving away the shop to the provinces. This Bill does not deal with giving the provinces anything. This Bill deals with getting $100 million from the provinces, for which I was responsible. That is what this Bill we are discussing today is all about. Why does the Hon. Member keep saying I am giving the shop away to the provinces when the Bill we are discussing-at least, we are supposed to be, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect-is a Bill which is part of an agreement whereby I raised on behalf of the Government of Canada $100 million? That money is from the provinces in return for this Bill. That is what this Bill is all about.
I believe a disease which is shared by all Hon. Members of the Liberal Party is that they forget that the citizens of a province are also citizens of Canada. Why is the Hon. Member trying to break up the jurisdictions? If we are going to give to the provinces, does that mean it is going to disappear from the borders of Canada? Does the Hon. Member not consider that there are citizens of other provinces other than the one he lives in? We are all citizens of this country. Members of this Party and this Government believe that the citizens of British Columbia, Alberta, Prince Edward Island or any other province, are also citizens of Canada.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Quebec.


Otto John Jelinek: Yes, Quebec. I will go through all of them: Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the Territories.


Mr. Della  Noce@: And Quebec.


Otto John Jelinek: And Quebec, the Yukon, and Ontario. I had forgotten Ontario, and I am from Ontario.
On a serious note, the point which the Hon. Member is trying to make is a point the Liberal Government tried to make, and that is, if you give to the provinces, it disappears, and Canadians do not benefit. I do not believe that. I believe that when we give to the provinces-although that is not what we are discussing today; we are discussing something the provinces are giving us, which is $100 million-it is still money which is to provide for all of Canada. It is to provide for all Canadians. It is to provide for the benefit of Canadians in the field of amateur sports, in fitness, in health reductions, medicine, the arts and in the whole spectrum of our society. This Party stands united with the provinces.
We have created a new spirit of co-operation between the federal Government and the provinces. It is a spirit which never existed under the Trudeau Liberals. I believe that the attitude which has been expressed today by the Hon. Member for York West, and by other Hon. Members on the Liberal side, even without Mr. Trudeau around, would still not change. Those Hon. Members would still try to dictate to the provinces. They would still try to be the confrontationalists. That is inbred in their blood. That is what the Liberals are all about. They are all about splitting the country apart, putting region against region, province against province, the rich against the poor. That is the problem with the Liberal administration.
I believe that the steps we have taken today, and in the past 14 months, are the best steps that the federal Government has taken in many years, and economic statistics prove it.


Marcel Danis: Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and to put to the House the necessary motion to dispose of the remaining stages of Bill C-81.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.02 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.02 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 7, 1985