1976-10-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an issue of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the statements made by the Minister of Transport last Friday in Winnipeg promising to review the proposed location of the new Canadian National Railways piggyback terminal because of the economic disadvantages to the CNR and the harm to the surrounding residential community, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart):
That this House direct the Ministry of Transport to request that the CNR halt further construction of the new terminal until an independent inquiry can be established to review the whole matter with a view to selecting an alternative site.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Due to poor maintenance, many wharves built by the federal government along the St. Lawrence River have fallen into disrepair. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House recommend to the federal government that a survey of all wharves be conducted to determine precisely which ones should be renovated without delay to be used when we have our merchant marine.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to persons living in my constituency and in the general area of Leeds and Grenville counties, arising out of a recent announcement by the CBC that it will use the last available FM radio channel in the area for the almost immediate construction in Brockville, Ontario, of a 3,000 watt FM French language transmitter with a maximum radius of under 30 miles. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That in view of the fact that the area to be served is well over 98 per cent non-French speaking and that such CBC action will prevent future establishment of any private FM station in the Brockville district, the House requests the government to take immediate steps to cancel such plans in the interests of common sense and proper expenditure of taxpayers' money and, finally, that the government adopt a clear policy of placing any new CBC French or English radio or television stations only in areas where a reasonable percentage of either language in the minority actually exists.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SOVIET DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we begin the oral question period may I bring to the attention of hon. members the

October 20, 1976
Oral Questions
presence in our gallery of a distinguished delegation visiting our country which has been here now for just over a week and will leave tomorrow. I am referring to the delegation from the Soviet Union headed by the distinguished president of the Soviet of Nationalities, Mr. Vitali Petrovitch Ruben.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of this morning's story in the Montreal Gazette relating to constitutional amendments, will the Acting Prime Minister advise the House if any new proposals, information or documents which would have prompted this story have been put forward by the federal government to the provinces since those documents tabled in the House on April 9?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the importance of the question asked by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I read the story in the Montreal Gazette this morning; obviously, as the hon. member knows, the story is inaccurate. If I may respond directly to the hon. member's question, there has been no further documentation or proposal made since the Prime Minister tabled copies of his letters to the premiers respecting the patriation exercise of April 10, 1976, to which a draft proclamation was appended. This draft proclamation is falsely drawn upon to support the allegation that the draft proclamation itself removes existing guarantees with respect to language rights.
I think Article 30 of the draft proclamation is explicit and states that English and French are the official languages of Canada, that no provision in this part shall derogate from any right, privilege or obligation existing under any other provision of the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This language in the draft proclamation clarifies the situation perfectly and indicates that the report in the Gazette is false. One can only hope, in view of the anxiety that report will create, that similar publicity will be given to the correction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Acting Prime Minister for his explanation, given the many great inaccuracies contained in that story. Nevertheless, having said that, in

view of the confusion and dangerous misunderstandings which this article could create in the minds of many Canadians on the language rights issue, as the minister mentioned, can the government affirm that in the event of patriation of the constitution, however achieved, the existing guarantees in the British North America Act for language rights will not be withdrawn or weakened in any way?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is clearly the policy of the government. That is the proposal that is contained in the draft proclamation which was tabled by the Prime Minister in the House. Therefore, there is no equivocation in replying positively to the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DATE OF CONFERENCE WITH PREMIERS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Can the
Acting Prime Minister advise if any date has been set for further constitutional discussions between the Prime Minister and the premiers as proposed by the premiers following the termination of their meeting in Toronto on October 2?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no specific date has been set for a future discussion between the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces. I shall be tabling later today copies of correspondence between the Prime Minister and Premier Lougheed of Alberta who acted as chairman of the premiers' meeting on this question. In that correspondence it will be seen that there is an acceptance of a future meeting with the premiers, but no specific date has yet been set.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister as well. Considering the message the people of Canada sent the government via two by-elections on Monday can the Acting Prime Minister possibly explain the priorities of the government as indicated in the 11 bills filed yesterday, almost all of which are housekeeping or include such gems as the Historic Sites and Monuments Act amendment and an act respecting diplomatic and consular privileges.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Are these the real priorities of the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the priorities of the government have been set forth in the Speech from the Throne.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 20, 1976


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The list of bills of which notice was given yesterday, of course, includes bills that will be brought forward, hopefully in the course of the session. Each of the bills, of course, does not carry the same priority. I hope that the hon. member realizes there are a number of extremely important bills in the group of which notice was given yesterday.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister knows that Speeches from the Throne have as much bearing on the actions of the government as quotations from the Old Testament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Acting Prime Minister said that there are priority bills in the list. I looked at it with care and I found no more than two. I repeat, nine are housekeeping bills. Can the Acting Prime Minister explain to the House and through the House to the people of Canada why there is not one bill on unemployment, not one bill on housing, not one bill on energy, not one bill with anything of real substance?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that bills relating to the subjects that he has mentioned will be brought forward. I hope that when they do come forward within a relatively short time the hon. member will stand up and draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are meeting the priorities in the Speech from the Throne.


John Edward Broadbent: Will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the bills of substance to which he has alluded will be brought forward in time to provide a few more jobs at least for some of the 700,000 who are now unemployed before Christmas?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[ Translation]


HOUSING
Mr. G6rard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Considering that the funds earmarked for RRAP have already practically run out, would the minister advise the House if additional monies will be made available for this program this year or, at the very least at the beginning of next year, so that the rehabilitation of all those units may be carried out as soon as possible?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If I understood the hon. member correctly,
Oral Questions
his question refers to the rehabilitation and renewal program, which we call RRAP. Funds have been reallocated from other programs within our budget so that this program can continue to the end of this year and, of course, it will be renewed next year because of its high degree of success.


Gérard Laprise: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Following the decision of the Department of Urban Affairs, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation set up regulations concerning this program. Would the minister table those regulations before the House so that hon. members may read them?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I can see no objection to that, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. As a late report indicates that the hon. gentleman intends to meet with Canadian Press employers on Friday, would he confirm that this meeting will take place and will he tell the House whether he intends, also, to meet with the guild and the publishers? Further, does he intend to recommend that the sensible course of arbitration should take place immediately to end this long and costly dispute?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I am happy to advise the hon. member that I am meeting with the committee representing the publishers on Friday. I do not anticipate meeting with the guild prior to that time because I have already met with them and I think they are aware of what I am doing; that meeting may well take place subsequent to my meeting with the publishers. The hon. member might agree with me that if I and my department are to try to mediate this dispute and attempt to resolve it I should not indicate at this stage what my own feelings are in the matter.


George Harris Hees: In view of what the minister has said, may I urge him very strongly, in the interests of fair play and of bringing this dispute to a quick end, that he should consider carefully and favourably the idea of introducing arbitration.


John Carr Munro: I am happy about the hon. member's progressive attitude.
262
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES

October 20, 1976


KINGSTON-ALLEGED BOMB THREAT IF INMATE DEMANDS NOT MET
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General? Having discussed this matter with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who is gravely concerned about affairs occurring in Kingston, may I ask whether the Solicitor General can indicate whether he has contacted penitentiary officials in Kingston with regard to a threat by a woman caller to a radio station to blow up a public institution if inmate demands were not met? If so, what action, if any, is being taken by the officials to ensure the security of the citizens of Kingston?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been referred to the provincial authorities. So far as the question of inmate activities at Millhaven are concerned, I had a meeting with the regional director and with other regional directors yesterday afternoon and it is our intention to come back to a situation of normalization as soon as the situation allows it at Kingston.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not direct his reply to the action being taken to ensure the safety of the citizens of Kingston, which is concerning not only the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands but all of us. Can the minister say whether there has been any approach by the local police to the RCMP for assistance in investigating the incident or assisting them in any other way? In answering that, can the minister also say what are the inmates' demands and what response has been given to those demands by the authorities?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the provincial police in Ontario and the municipal police force have been made aware of the situation, and if they require the assistance of the RCMP in their investigations we will, of course, be pleased to provide same.


PERFORMING ARTS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. I know that some time ago he was quoted as saying that both the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party are in trouble and that frankly one or the other would disappear. I hope that that is not the quality of insight that he brings to his department but I do want to congratulate him on his appointment.
The independent film producers have for some time been asking the government to delete sections 9 and 11 from the National Film Act. Since the government indicated in its Speech from the Throne that it has the intention of releasing some government work to the private sector, would the minis-

ter tell the House whether that will have top priority in this particular area, so that the film producers will have some competition?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the second part of the hon. member's statement is concerned, we are considering that matter actively at the present time.


Benno Friesen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he will ensure that they will be able to compete in all areas for government contracts, not just for the bits and scraps that they have been getting up to this time?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to confine them to bits and scraps.


INDUSTRY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is with respect to the Aurora program, particularly the economic spin-off advantages. Has the minister any explanation as to why it is that the aerospace industry in the Atlantic provinces, specifically Nova Scotia, having been offered a $6 million part of that program over a six-year period, now in fact finds that their program is $600,000 over the same period of time?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such specific commitment. Evidently, I am not responsible for the allocation of contracts. I will inquire and report immediately to the hon. member.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On October 13, as reported at page 19 of Hansard, in answer to a question from my colleague from Hamilton West, the minister said that the bill to negotiate reciprocity of pensions between Canada and several countries, including the United Kingdom, "is being drafted and I hope I will be able to table it in the House for first reading in the next few months". This is also the exact wording that he used over six months ago when he announced the plan. My question is: Has the minister made no progress at all in drafting this plan during the past six months?
October 20, 1976


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, substantial progress has been made in that field in the past six months. The only problem is that we are unable to get the necessary time in the House to consider the bills concerned.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. During the minister's meeting with United States officials in Washington on Friday last were any discussions held by him, or prior to his visit by his officials, or by fishery officials, on the possibility of establishing a joint Canada-U.S. fisheries management commission to manage stocks in all Canada-U.S. boundary areas? If so, would he be prepared to table the United States and Canadian proposals; and since the government has indicated that it will declare a 200 mile limit on January 1, 1977, or in approximately 73 days, was any agreement reached on the joint management of this resource?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will try as briefly as I can to answer what is a very complex question. There were very detailed discussions between myself and the United States Secretary on this matter. Prior to my going to Washington there were also talks between officials and there have been follow-up talks which were held yesterday. They covered most of the questions the hon. member has raised in a general discussion fashion. As things stand at the moment, the Secretary and I have agreed that it would not be possible in the period between now and the issuing of our order in council, which must come at the end of October or shortly thereafter, to achieve a final and ultimate resolution of the various issues. What the officials are now seeking is some kind of interim arrangement that will permit Canada to proceed on or about January 1 with this 200-mile declaration and the United States, I believe, in March 1977.
In the meantime there will unquestionably be issues left unsolved. What we are seeking is an interim arrangement while discussions are proceeding toward what we hope will be a mutually satisfactory solution over time. However, the hon. member is very experienced in this matter and I think would agree with me that this is not something that is going to be settled in two or three months.
Oral Questions

INCARCERATION OF ANDRfiE LECLERC IN INDIA-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION


Mr. Raynald Guay (L6vis):: Mr. Speaker, I am directing another question to the Minister of External Affairs.
Following a telegram which I recently received from the family of Marie-Andree Leclerc from my constituency who has been jailed in New Delhi in India since July 9 without any charge being laid against her, I would like to know whether the Canadian government has contacted the Indian authorities. If so, what happened? If not, I would like it to intervene as soon as possible for the sake of freedom and basic human rights and to enable this young Canadian to obtain justice.

Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable, of course, that no more rapid action has been undertaken in the case of this young lady. However, I am advised that our high commissioner in New Delhi has now been officially informed that Miss Leclerc is being detained under what is known as the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. The reason for this is that the crimes she is alleged to have committed occurred both in India and abroad. The allegations regarding the criminal acts are under investigation. We have been advised that Indian authorities have decided to keep Miss Leclerc under judicial remand until the investigations have been completed, at which time any justifiable charges will be laid. This is the maximum amount of information we have been able to obtain to date.


COMBINES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the people of the city of Ottawa have been denied any daily English-language newspaper at least twice in the last week, on Friday and again on Tuesday, because of a pact between the publishers of the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Journal that one will not publish when the other cannot publish, will the minister investigate to see whether this is a violation of the Combines Investigation Act, since it appears to be a blatant example of non-competitive collusion between two corporate giants?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my constitutional responsibility simply to bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the director of Combines Investigation. That is all I can do.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if the minister finds that this kind of policy is not covered by the act as drafted, will he assure the House that when he brings in new legislation soon a provision will be included in the act that will cover policies of this sort that are taken against the community interest and are
80001-18%

October 20, 1976
Oral Questions
hard on the people of Ottawa and the small business community in this city?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The hon. member's point will certainly be considered.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour, the minister in charge of the demise of the multicultural department. Will he please advise the House when he plans to name the chairman of the Multicultural Consultation Council? Do we have to wait until 1978, and why is he waiting so long?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously more excessive in his language than I would have anticipated, having already advised him that a prospective chairman is seeing me tomorrow when we are going to talk about the matter.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You mean only one guy has applied?


An hon. Member:: You want a job, Steve?


Steve Eugene Paproski: You have to be out of your mind.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member, knowing that the man in question comes from Edmonton, would not want any more applicants.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to advise the minister that there are Polish, Italians, Portuguese, German and others besides Ukrainians applying for the job.


John Carr Munro: Is the hon. member applying?


Steve Eugene Paproski: If the price is right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of National Defence, notice of which I have given. Yesterday at approximately 10 a.m. the air-sea rescue centre in Halifax received a distress call from a Dutch freighter 60 miles off the southeast coast of Newfoundland. Some five hours later a helicopter arrived on the scene. In the interim 13 of these seamen had died from exposure. Why did it take five hours to get a rescue helicopter

on the scene, since it would appear that the delay was a major factor in the loss of these 13 lives?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I think some of the facts of this tragic case should be cleared up. An aircraft from the base in the maritimes was off the ground within 18 minutes of receiving the alert, and was on the scene within two hours of receiving the alert. In addition a Labrador helicopter was there shortly after that and able to save one man. Unfortunately, someone had ordered the ship to be abandoned in an 80-mile an hour gale with 40-foot waves-a tragic situation. We were able to rescue one man, but unfortunately in that time frame and those waters others are presumed lost. The armed forces searched with a high degree of efficiency, as is usual to them. They were off the ground and in the area as quickly as it was humanly possible to accomplish such a feat.


REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT IN OPERATION OF SERVICE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the tragic and urgent nature of this matter I would direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport who shares responsibility in this area. On September 29 a Newfoundland trawler went aground in the same area, and were it not for the bravery and initiative of the residents on shore 14 Newfoundland fishermen would have lost their lives as there was no helicopter in the area. My question to the minister is, how many more people have to die before you will do something about it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment whom I wish to congratulate as he is about to take on greater responsibilities.
In view of the importance of our patrolling efficiently our coastal waters, is the minister aware that the Howay, the fishing patrol ship on the west coast, is still standing idle in the port of Victoria for total lack of funds to operate and, if so, what does he intend to do to get it back into action and ensure our presence in those waters?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak with the crew of the Howay some time in August. I found them eager to take over all patrol operations to meet our obligations. That vessel is affected by a lack of funds, which situation is general in view of the extraordinary expenses incurred in the last two or three

October 20, 1976

years in the field of vessel operations. We are trying to use the funds as best as we can to meet our needs. There is no doubt that because seasonal fishing activities have slowed down in some areas off the Pacific coast the need for patrols was less severe. Still, five days ago 1 authorized the transfer of funds, within my department, to enable the use of those vessels; perhaps not that of the Howay immediately, but at least in the weeks to come, and I am doing everything I can to give that priority the importance it deserves.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
In light of the answer of the minister, I should very much like to know why that vessel is still in port, why it is not on patrol?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for some of our ships to lie at anchor in the port.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for St. John's East of the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that there may be a recurrence of the epidemic of loss of lives as a result of the lack of capability of the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of National Defence, I wonder whether the minister would now be able to table the report of the committee of the Coast Guard task force and realize that again we will have an epidemic of loss of lives because of the lack of capability. What action does he intend to take in the immediate future so that we might avoid further occurrences as the fishing season opens and as the weather gets worse.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I appreciate the tone of that question compared to the completely impossible attitude of taking advantage of the serious situation shown by the hon. member for St. John's East.
Mr. Speaker, I answered that question about the imminent announcement of the additional facilities in the area of the Coast Guard, but of course all hon. members who look at the question reasonably will understand that in cases of disaster at sea we will always count on the assistance of all existing vessels and people in the area, private vessels always forming the most likely and immediately on the scene assistance. The attempt to make it sound as though the Coast Guard facilities
Oral Questions
in a particular place should always be exactly there awaiting the accident is of course a completely impossible suggestion. Notwithstanding that we have said that we want additional facilities. We are going to be getting the additional facilities and that announcement will take place soon.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reasonable answer would the minister assure the House and the people of Newfoundland that there will be a reasonable deployment of the air, sea and rescue forces in Newfoundland, which is closer to the scene where all the unfortunate incidents are occurring, and would he take immediate action to deploy part of the air-sea rescue squadron, or the capability, to the province of Newfoundland.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that it will be our intention to deploy the available forces in the places where they are most useful and that the analysis of where the problems arise and where the services are deployed can be made once the announcement is made.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REASON FOR DELAY IN MONITORING ACTIVITIES OF MARKETING BOARDS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Could he tell the House what is the current status of efforts by the Anti-Inflation Board to get provincial and federal marketing boards to agree to co-operate with it and allow the Anti-Inflation Board's efforts to monitor their activities to go on pursuant to indications given by the government a month ago that the board would be doing this. Further, could he say why there has been what appears to be such a delay in getting this useful work underway?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to press the inquiry with the Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Consumers Association of Canada, the Canadian Railway Labour Association and Transport 2000 have today publicly stated that the parallel consultative study of the Ministry of Transport might interfere with and undermine the ability of the Canadian Transport Commission to enunciate a preferred plan for transcontinental passenger trains that would be in line with the spirit exhibited in the summary of findings from 15 hearings in 14 cities, between Montreal and Vancou-

October 20, 1976
Oral Questions
ver, will the minister assure the House that neither he nor his ministry will interfere with the CTC by coming out with the minister's own report resulting from the parallel study and thus ignoring the 195 briefs submitted to the CTC and to influence the report of the CTC itself. Will the minister ensure that the CTC is completely free to ignore any or all of the parallel study if it is so inclined.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no need for anyone to fear any interference with the CTC's move toward a preferred plan and a final recommendation to us on all transportation services by rail. It was, of course, our purpose in setting this forward to have good rail service developed in Canada in a very positive way. That was stated in the January 29 statement. I think it is wrong to refer, in the exact terms used, to parallel studies as though they are competing. There certainly is no intention to preempt or move ahead of the CTC in its work.
What our work has been about has been the preparation of the ground so that after the necessary decisions are taken we will have as full an appreciation as possible of the provincial positions in relation to their interest in services and the kind of services that will complement rail services. In addition, we also will have as full as possible knowledge of the problems which may be created for the working men involved in the operation of the trains. Our objective after the CTC recommendation is to follow with as swift an action as possible so that we will have improved quality of rail transportation service where it is continued in Canada.


CONSULTATION WITH LABOUR ON RAILWAY PASSENGER TRAIN POLICY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister in his announcement earlier in the year said that the parallel study would consult with the carrier, labour, the provinces and others. I am informed by railway labour that they have not been consulted. If the minister has full confidence in the CTC and wants to reassure all concerned that the parallel study is not designed to get the kind of report that he and his ministry want, will the minister request the CTC, after it has received the parallel study by MOT, to hold further hearings at least in Ottawa at which interested parties may examine, comment upon and if necessary refute the parallel study by Transport Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprise that the hon. member is now in his second question suggesting that I interfered with the procedures of the CTC. The CTC is fully able to take care of its own procedures. He will notice that the CLC compliments the Canadian Transport Commission on the manner in which it summarizes the proceedings. I may say also to the hon. member that he should check with his sources again, because they will confirm that there have been meetings between my officials and representatives of labour. I do not know whether the single labour party to whom he referred was involved but certainly there were representatives involved.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
First of all I should like to thank him on behalf of the producers in my region for the improvements which have been made under the release we received yesterday.
Now, may I ask the minister whether the allocation of these new quotas will be made free of charge or whether producers will have to pay a certain amount of money to obtain them?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the whole distribution of the quotas will have to be worked out with the provincial marketing boards concerned. It is not our intention, if it can be worked by any means, that they would have to pay for it. We do not want them to have to pay a high price. If the boards who administer that quota within a province figure that the Producers should pay a nominal fee, that will be up to them.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Considering the importance of this issue and the fact that a lot has been written about it over the past few months, may I ask the minister whether he will take the necessary steps to ensure that the allocation of these new quotas is made on the basis of the criteria mentioned in his release, criteria of which I fully approve.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, that is the whole intent of the program.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It arises out of the exchange on Monday between my colleague from Annapolis Valley and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs hinted last Friday following his meeting with Secretary Kissinger that the piratical policy of the CRTC in requiring Canadian cable companies to delete commercials from United States programming might be ended, can the minister tell the House whether that is, in fact, the government's intention and, if so, what policies, if any, it intends to substitute for the deletions policy?
October 20, 1976

Hod. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications): Mr. Speaker, I can hardly agree with the view of the hon. member that these practices are piratical because they are engaged in with the knowledge and acquiescence of everyone concerned. Bill C-58 was an attempt to deal with that problem in part, but hon. members opposite were quite reluctant to support that bill. However, we are trying to deal with it because it is important to protect the broadcasting industry, which is very fragile in this country. The Americans have requested a delay in the implementation of the commercial deletion requirement. That request is being considered and is the object of many discussions between the CRTC, FCC and those concerned.


SUGGESTED ELIMINATION OF POWER OF BROADCASTING COMMISSION TO MAKE POLICY DECISIONS
Henry Perrin Beatty: In view of the fact that in a democracy major policy decisions which will have a tremendous impact upon our relations with our neighbours, upon our cultural development and upon the ability of our citizens to see and hear what they would like should be made by elected representatives and not by an appointed body which is virtually responsible to no one for its actions, does the government intend to introduce amendments to the Broadcasting Act which would curtail the ability of the CRTC to make these policy decisions without the approval of parliament?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: The
Minister of Communications takes full responsibility for the CRTC; therefore, I think it is quite unfair and unjustified to say that the CRTC is answerable to no one. The CRTC should be free from input at the political level to go about its regulatory functions, and nothing is going to be changed in this respect. However, it is not improper for the Minister of Communications to discuss in a general manner questions of policy, and this is done from time to time.
The legislation which I will be introducing in this House during this session will also formalize the ability of the Minister of Communications to give policy directions to the CRTC, and I think the hon. member will find that that will improve the situation with regard to this question.


HOUSING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I gave the minister notice of this question in the fear that he might have forgotten that he has a mandate in the area of native and rural housing.
Can the minister tell this House today whether he has a mandate from the cabinet to develop a policy which would
Oral Questions
address itself to the real needs of native people in urban centres in this country in their attempts to obtain some form of shelter, and if he has such a mandate, when will he announce a policy?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, certainly there is a mandate with regard to a rural and native housing program. It applies to all low income Canadians in rural areas. We also have a mandate for urban dwellers, but not specifically for natives. It is for all low income Canadians. We do not discriminate between native and non-native Canadians.
Having said that, we are making special efforts, and on a crash basis, to work with native groups to improve their ability to acquire housing for their own purposes. A special work is now going on with groups in Winnipeg and in other parts of the country, and CMHC has instructions to proceed with this on a high priority basis. The work is with the native peoples themselves so that they can help themselves, for that is what they wish to do. I believe I have their confidence in this, but I am as impatient as they are.


MANPOWER
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with reference to the amount of money allocated under this year's LIP to Cape Breton Island. I wrote to the minister some time ago, but in view of the urgency, I would like to raise this question at this time.
In view of the fact that the allocation for each riding, including the riding of the government House leader, as compared with the amounts allocated last year, has been slashed by 50 per cent and more, and in view of the fact that the unemployment rate there is between 25 per cent and 30 per cent at the moment-and, unfortunately this winter it will get worse-would the minister do his utmost to have this year's funding raised to at least the apportionment of last year?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the support of the hon. member for a fantastic program. Perhaps he can convince his colleagues that we should not always be chastised for spending more money at the government level when we have a good program. When we have to do some cutting, we get no credit for that, but frankly, nothing but blame. I think it is an excellent program. It has done a fantastic job, and I appreciate the support of the hon. member for this program.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Robert Muir: I cannot say I appreciate the minister's verbiage because he gave no answer to my question. However, would the minister advise who the idiots were who devised the

October 20, 1976
Oral Questions
formula which was used for the apportionment? Surely, neither he nor his predecessor would want to take credit for that. When can we get some more money?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I can say that the initiative did not come from politicians.

[ Translation]


AIR CANADA
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Given the fact that only 128 of the 1,600 pilots employed by Air Canada are French-speaking and also that last week Air Canada decreased by 46 the number of its pilots based at Montreal while the number of positions was increased by 42 in Toronto for a total of 717, can the minister tell the House if he is prepared to investigate this matter to determine what reasons have led Air Canada to proceed to such a transfer from Montreal to Toronto and, at the same time, inform us about the conditions and objectives which the expansion program and the recruiting and hiring policy of Air Canada Corporation are aimed at serving?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into these matters. I had not been aware of any major new transfer policy, but I will inquire and report.

[ Translation]


INQUIRY IF POLICY WILL BE ANNOUNCED SOON
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, but first let me congratulate her for her new portfolio. 1 would also take the opportunity to offer her my most sincere cooperation.
The question 1 want to ask her is the following: In view of her new responsibilities and of the government's intent as stated in the Speech of the Throne to allow additional funds for training Canadian athletes, will the minister announce to the House in the near future whether the government really intends to bring forward a national policy on amateur sport and fitness and, if so, with a view to achieving such a policy, does the minister intend to arrange a federal-provincial conference to make this policy as successful as Canadians expect it to be?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for

his welcome to this branch. In the first instance he asked about a national sport policy. The fitness and amateur sport branch is working on such a policy at this time, but as I am sure the hon. member can imagine, that this is a rather complicated operation with which I shall be dealing in the very near future.
As to a federal-provincial conference, it is my intention first to go to each of the provincial capitals to visit each of the ministers of education and recreation and others involved in amateur sport so that I can learn the philosophy of the provinces separately before I consider embarking upon a federal-provincial conference.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the many complaints and delays of up to three hours, which have become commonplace for motorists returning to Canada from Blaine, Washington, at the border crossing at Douglas, British Columbia, I would like to ask whether the minister will conduct an immediate investigation into the gross understaffing which has left over half the gates unmanned at peak traffic periods and caused these wasteful delays.
[Translation


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered a host of letters of complaints from Canadian citizens relating to traffic tie-ups on the border at Douglas, as suggested by the hon. member. I explained in these letters that some strikes in British Columbia forced citizens of that province to buy in the United States the food which is necessary to everyday life. Of course, we were not informed by the strikers. This has created a stranglehold in our services which we are now beefing up with supplementary staff for the next social crises which could force people to make such displacements to the United States.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to know if the minister would concede that the failure to put quotas on beef imports from Oceanic countries was a direct ploy to give the indication that the Anti-Inflation Program was working?
October 20, 1976

269,


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the question because quotas are already on the Oceanic countries.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert  Mc@: Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to break the ice of a new session, particularly after 80 tries. My question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and such are the circumstances I have not only given him notice of it once, I have given him notice twice. Could the minister advise of the likely date that all present applications by world war II services and merchant navy personnel for the prisoner of war benefits approved a few months ago will have been decided upon? Could the minister also advise approximately how many claims remain to be processed?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the claims received to date amount to approximately 7,000. As of last September 4,500 were processed. We anticipate that all claims will be settled or looked at by the end of November.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presenting reports of special committees.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds on a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege resulting from remarks made in this House yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) concerning me. They were remarks not just merely inaccurate but, instead, gross distortions of the facts and the truth, and they cast reflections upon my conduct as a member of this House which I am certainly not prepared, nor do I think I should be, to tolerate. They also cast uncalled for and unjustified aspersions on all members of the official opposition in this House.
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
I should like to refer to page 212 of yesterday's Hansard and to paraphrase as briefly as possible the objectionable words used by the minister as he addressed himself to comments made by the speaker who had preceded him in the debate, namely, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The minister said he was really shocked that I had dared to criticize Her Majesty the Queen. He said he did not know why, but the hon. member for Leeds dared to criticize the Queen after she had performed magnificently in Canada during the Olympic Games.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: He also said he hoped that some day the right hon. member for Prince Albert would sock it to the hon. member for Leeds for his "discourtesy" to the Queen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The minister also said that Liberal members would never dare do such a thing, and that he was surprised that in an effort to cover up, the right hon. member for Prince Albert would try to appease the monarchists in Canada because some people on his side were giving the Queen a hard time.
Mr. Speaker, I have never at any time criticized Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I have never at any time shown discourtesy to the Queen, nor do I ever recall at any time any member of the official opposition in this House-to use the words that the minister used-"giving the Queen a hard time." That is a thing, incidentally, that I cannot say with such certainty about those opposite.
On July 29-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) raises what could certainly promise to be a scintillating disagreement with the minister, but it is essentially a disagreement. I waited to see if the hon. member was about to raise a question of privilege which might in any way raise unparliamentary language or an allegation that was in any way contrary to precedents and parliamentary practices. If there is nothing more than disagreement regarding the interpretation of the minister's words, then the hon. member has a matter of debate and not a question of privilege. If the hon. member has a question of privilege, would he please develop it.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the minister said, I feel I should make one thing very clear, namely, that on July 29 this year I issued a statement, and as part of its contents are what the minister is basing his remarks upon I feel it only right and fair that I be permitted to read the pertinent extracts of that statement which clearly show what this situation is.


An hon. Member:: No.

October 20, 1976
Vacancy


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I feel-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The debate in which we will shortly be engaged and in which the minister was speaking last night is a debate upon the Speech from the Throne and the address in reply thereto. It is a debate in which the rules of relevance are customarily relaxed to the point that members are entitled to speak on a rather wide variety of subjects. If the hon. member for Leeds has a disagreement with the minister, which he obviously has, and wishes to expound his side of the story or his version of what the hon. minister was referring to in debate, he is welcome to enter the debate and do so.
Whether the hon. member has a question of privilege on the remarks the minister made last night is a separate question altogether. I have listened to the hon. member's remarks, and he has not in any way attempted to develop a question of privilege within the classic definition. He has a question of dispute and disagreement with the minister, however, and I invite him, as I am sure all hon. members do, to enter the debate and make his point that way.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, the Hon. J. A. Angus MacLean, P.C., member for the electoral district of Malpeque, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


STATISTICS CANADA
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, last Monday the hon. member for Central Nova asked me a question. I was ready to reply yesterday, but he was not here. With the permission of the House, may I reply to his question now? It is not too long, but touches an important issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a response can only be made at this time with the unanimous consent of the House. It cannot be followed with a supplementary question. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The chief statistician has advised me that one case of possible breach of the confidentiality provisions of the Statistics Act has been investigated by the RCMP in recent years. The investigation was conducted in 1974. The investigation concluded that there was no breach of confidentiality. Similarly, the investigation concluded that there was no evidence to support prosecution under the Criminal Code.
The RCMP report did suggest the existence of a conflict of interest situation and unethical professional conduct. This unethical conduct involved moonlighting on the part of four employees who were offering consulting services which consisted of the preparation and sale of tables of non-confidential, publicly available statistics. This moonlighting was uncovered in its initial stage. Appropriate disciplinary action was taken by Statistics Canada management against three of the employees. The involvement of the fourth employee was so limited as to not warrant disciplinary action. If the hon. member has more information, he should convey it to the RCMP.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I say that we are grateful to the minister for answering the hon. member's question today. The minister acted with promptitude. However, I would not want any minister opposite to think that on every occasion we shall grant unanimous consent for making a statement which ought to be made by a minister on motions, by virtue of the substance of the matter. I wish to indicate through you, sir, to the ministry that the procedure of motions is important, as is the right to ask supplementary questions. I would not want, through this practice, to deny the House the use of such procedure.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely. I saw the hon. member for Central Nova rising to his feet for recognition. I had agreed to reply to him. I had agreed to convey right away the information sought, in order to avoid any delay in answering.


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer which arose from my earlier question. I wonder if I
October 20, 1976

could address one more question to him. Would that be appropriate?


Walter David Baker: Why not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We face a serious difficulty in this situation. Frequently, ministers, I think in good faith, or often in good faith-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -indicate that although they do not have immediately available information sought by way of a question, they will undertake to return to the House at the earliest moment with the information. If they do this on the following day, the Chair is put in a difficult position. Having recognized the original questioner on the previous day, the Chair faces pressure from other members who also want to rise. This difficulty is not capable of easy solution. Although we try our best to cope with the situation, I do not think we should embark upon a question period every time a minister attempts to do what the minister has done.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. House rule 35 in the Standing Orders reads:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the Government of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I think, since the statement has been made in this House that I did that very thing, I should be permitted to say to this House what I really did say. Having consulted the Chair for advice prior to this sitting, I understood it would be in order to say what I really did say and quote verbatim. I think any other course would be most unfair-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member surely knows that there is no allegation that the hon. member in this House, during the course of debate, made any allegation which was disrespectful to Her Majesty. That is the content of the rule. I think the hon. member should clearly understand that if he proposes to seek the floor on a question of privilege, he ought to develop a case for a question of privilege which comes within the classic definition. If he, on the other hand, raises a question of disagreement, or one for debate, as he has, he is welcome to enter the debate and raise his point. There is no appeal from rulings of the Chair. I made the ruling, definitive and clear, on the point. I do not think the hon. member ought to press it further.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, it would be most unfair to leave the impression-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, surely I can say-
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, in the name of fairness, it is my democratic right to be heard. I don't know why I should not be heard under this rule-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak under this rule-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE CONSTITUTION
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as indicated, I should like to table correspondence between the Prime Minister and Premier Lougheed on the subject of the patriation of the constitution.


FINANCE
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies, in both official languages, of the white paper on Canadian banking legislation.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maurice Harquail for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. John Wise (p. 220).
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when I began speaking in this debate I had the dubious honour of following the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who had put up an incredible performance in this House. His performance last night put me in mind of the Russian parliamentary delegation which was present in our gallery earlier

October 20, 1976
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn
this afternoon. Having reviewed the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture, it seems to me that his only appropriate comment was to this effect: if he were in Russia, he would be awarded a medal. I do not quite know how to take that remark, except that if he were prepared to go to Russia I would be prepared to cast a medal-to make sure he goes over.
I was complimenting the mover and seconder of the motion. I have come to know the seconder reasonably well. Although so far he is the youngest member ever to have been elected to the House, I notice he has aged considerably in trying to support the contents of the vacuous document we are now debating. I extend to him my congratulations.
For many of us in this House, yesterday was day of particular consequence. I am referring to our colleague who resigned his seat, effective midnight yesterday, the previous member for Malpeque, the Hon. J. Angus MacLean. I join in the expressions of tribute to him. We have always considered an indication of Mr. MacLean's superior distinction the fact that he married a Saskatoon girl, who has been with him throughout his years in Ottawa and has been a wonderful helpmate.


Mr. Goodale:: 1 will accept that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I congratulate the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) and the hon. member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) for being appointed to their present positions. I look forward to seeing them display the same impartiality and competence as was displayed by our late colleague, Albanie Morin, who we all miss greatly.
I was amazed to note, when the by-election results of the two constituencies recently contested at the federal level were made known during the course of the present debate, how apologists on the government side attempted to explain the results. We in the Conservative party are magnanimous in victory. We will not sit back and take for granted last Monday's victorious results. We know that victories down the line will mean ultimate victory in 1978.
I see my good friend, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) in the chamber. I was very interested in his speech. It was what I call a traditional Liberal speech; that is to say, the idea is to try to convince people that black is white. The hon. member for Scarborough West and the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) both made rather interesting speeches, but they were in fact apologists for this government.
There are a number of myths that have been perpetrated by the Liberals and by the government with regard to not only these by-elections but the role of the Liberal party today. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had a soul-baring in Toronto in which he in effect discussed at some length and with some candour the difficulties facing Canada today. Unfortunately, I am inclined to agree with the ever-growing number of people in Canada who interpret the Prime Minister's remarks about difficulties in Canada as being confused about the difficulties of the Liberal party. This has been the case as long as I have been observing the political scene in Canada. Liberal govern-

ments from the time of Mackenzie King have tended to regard the Canadian future and well-being as "if it is okay for the Liberal party, it is okay for Canada."
It is rather unfortunate that an attempt is being made to read into the results of the by-elections some sort of apology for the government, saying that the only reason the Conservative party had any success is that there is some sort of English backlash. I cannot think of anything more foolish or foolhardy for the government than continuing that course of action. If we look at the results of the by-elections, particularly in Ottawa-Carleton, we see that the results substantiate that there was not an English backlash. In Cumberland township, for example, where the home polls of the Liberal candidate were located, out of 18 polls the Conservative candidate won no less than 10, and the Liberal 8. These facts must be put on the record to demonstrate that in the case of the by-elections last Monday, what bound the people together was not a backlash one way or another but a common bond of dislike for the government of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is even more incredible to contemplate those who speak in support of the government. It is alleged that there is some sort of difficulty with regard to the unity of our country. As far as this party is concerned, and in particular our distinguished Francophone members, there is a unity that the Liberal party could well emulate. This party has a sense of unity and a degree of competence much ahead of the government party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Liberals are attempting to perpetrate the myth that they are the only party with the competence to govern.


Mr. Martin:: That is right.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would expect the hon. member for Scarborough West to agree, because his future depends on it. However, if we are going to look at competence, we should look at the length of the last session of parliament, the longest in the history of confederation. The incompetence of the government was tangibly demonstrated when, even with a majority, they did not bring forward any sensible body of legislation. They could not get it through. It was their incompetence which caused that session to last as long as it did. It is something that is very important, because the Liberal party is now being universally rejected by the people of Canada.
Looking at the Speech from the Throne, it is fair to say that that document is a continuation of the soul-baring of the Prime Minister.


Frank Oberle: A mea culpa.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My good friend, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) says that it is a mea
October 20, 1976

culpa, if a document can be described in that way. If confession is good for the soul, this document is very timely. We had a philosophical approach to the very serious problems as the government saw them. We had an admission of the fact that the government has not dealt with those problems as they ought to have done, that they would try to mend their ways and act in accordance with the demands and requirements of the people of Canada.
After bringing forward that document, at the first opportunity for the government to bring forward a slate of bills to indicate the kind of leadership they say they are going to give they bring in a list of legislation that was referred to in the question period today as a bit of a joke. If this country is in the difficult straits that are indicated in the Speech from the Throne, why lead off the list of legislation that has to receive immediate attention by this House with a bill relating to Historic Sites and Monuments Act amendments? That is an indication of the paucity of legislation and ideas of this government. When I think of monuments, I think of something that stands still. When I think of something standing still, I think of this government. Therefore, it probably is appropriate for this government to bring in Bill C-2.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture spent a lot of time talking about his wonderful record. He is a modest fellow. Every time he visits my constituency he converts more and more people. Unfortunately, for him, he converts them from the Liberal party to other parties. The Minister talked about the absolute lack in the Speech from the Throne of any meaningful reference to agriculture. The Speech from the Throne is supposed to be an indication of the priorities that a government places on the legislation to be dealt with in a session. Therefore, the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), really hit the nail on the head. It points out that this government, according to legislation which the Speech from the Throne declares it will bring forward, has absolutely no interest in the agricultural industry of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The only legislation the Minister of Agriculture talked about during the course of his speech was a bill respecting advance payments for crops, which apparently he will be introducing within the next week or so. It is timely to remember that when this advance concept was brought in by a Conservative government, it was subjected by ridicule by those who occupy the treasury benches today and their supporters. At that time such a scheme was regarded by members opposite as being unmanageable and it was criticized accordingly. Now, in 1976, we find the government grasping this legislation to its bosom and putting it forward as its sole contribution to assisting the agricultural community, and extending the principle to one or two other groups.
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn
The people of western Canada have reacted to the Speech from the Throne as one which does virtually nothing for the average person out there.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In the west today there is great apprehension concerning the future of agriculture in Saskatchewan. The Minister of Agriculture is a great joker. He has said that things were never better for the farmer, that the farmer never had it so good, the implication being that he need do nothing for them. The fact is that serious problems are facing farmers today, particularly those in western Canada. We are all grateful for the bumper crop this year, as well as for the high grade of the yield, but situations of this type often cover up serious, long term difficulties. Crops may be better, but everyone who is familiar with western Canada and, particularly, with Saskatchewan knows that costs have been rising while prices have been falling.
The cost of farming operations has risen dramatically over the last three or four years. This is all right when you have a bumper crop. It is all right when prices are high. But the cost of machinery and pesticides continues to rise. As I say, costs have risen dramatically. Five years ago, the cost of starting a grain farm of average size was in the vicinity of $50,000 to $60,000. Today, in order to get into business something like $150,000 is needed. How many people in Canada realize that an investment of this magnitude is involved? How many appreciate the return which is necessary in order to support it? Today, people are prepared to pay up to $500 per acre for better quality land. The Minister of Agriculture would do well to consider these things when assessing the situation in the west.
I am glad to see the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) in the chamber this afternoon. He is expert at playing broken records. I am glad to see him here because we want to cut down on American humour in Canada, and when the hon. member speaks Canadian humour is supreme.
I want to give a few examples of the cost increases to which I have referred. In 1976 the cost of machinery is up by 15 per cent compared to last year, and it is expected it will rise by a further 10 per cent in the coming year. This figure is ahead of the A1B guidelines. I want to know what action the government has taken to curb increases of this kind which affect the net income of Canadian farmers. It is true that the price of fertilizer is falling, but next spring I expect it will go up again. The cost of fuel, pesticides and other supplies needed to operate a farm can amount to $50 per acre. Nevertheless, the minister does not seem to appreciate the situation. He appears unaware of the serious problems on the horizon. If his sole gesture toward the agricultural community is to be this legislation, one sentence, or at the most a short paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, this confirms my impression that he should move to some other portfolio, possibly finance or consumer affairs. It would be better for him to employ his talents

October 20, 1976
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn
there than being Minister of Agriculture presiding over the disintegration of a great industry.
Many people in western Canada were disappointed to find there was only one reference to transportation in the Speech from the Throne. This is a further validation of the allegation-I say "allegation", but I believe it is a fact-which we in this party have been making for a long time. It confirms, also, the allegation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) when he handed in his resignation-that the party opposite does not care about western Canada. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) will understand this in the next election.
I do not propose to deal with the transportation issue in much detail at this point, but I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of the last election we heard the most elaborate promises on the part of leading figures in the party opposite with respect to transportation and a great new age for transportation in Canada. Indeed, they almost made me believe that at last a Liberal government really intended to do something in that area. I remember the statements made by the Prime Minister in Edmonton, as well as his speech in Cornwall, promising to put substantial amounts of money into urban transit. In Edmonton he referred to a wonderful concept of transcontinental trains. He was going to establish a new corporation. He was going to expand the existing transcontinental system. Provision would be made to allow passengers to place their cars aboard trains for transportation across Canada. The transcontinental service was to be made extremely attractive.
What do we find? The present Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), unfortunately-and I say "unfortunately" because this is a minister who comes from the west-is now presiding over the destruction of the passenger train service in our country. All of these are examples, Mr. Speaker, of the "black is white" theory that the government is following today.
I think we should hear from the minister in some detail in this regard. We have tried to draw him out in the question period and to give him every opportunity to do so. He should rise in his place in this House and tell us what legislation he has in mind. What about the promises that were made in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications last April, for example, when the minister said quite specifically that he was going to introduce legislation in a number of areas, if not immediately, then early in the new session? When will the minister tell us what he has in mind?
As for Air Canada, I want to know when amendments to the act will be brought in and what their nature will be. What is the government going to do in the area of a national transportation policy? I also want to know about a ports policy and the promised change in the institutional framework. I want to know about how the St. Lawrence Seaway financing is going to be dealt with. So many promises have been made by the government that it is hard to keep track of them. You almost need a filing cabinet in your office to locate them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Or a computer.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Only the NDP could afford a computer. The government has been suffering in the public opinion polls, and I think for a very good and valid reason. I think the government's credibility is very much at stake, as my leader pointed out in a very forceful speech. I think this can be traced to any number of issues that have arisen during the course of the government's mandate in this parliament. It extends from the fiasco of the 180 degree shift by the government on the question of wage and price controls. People were amazed when the Prime Minister went across the country saying, "Zap, your wages are going to be frozen". I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia will remember seeing, on television in Saskatchewan, people sitting on blocks of ice. We will all remember the government's turnabout.
I also think the Prime Minister made a very serious mistake regarding the difficulties of the air traffic controllers, and as a result his credibility has suffered. The Prime Minister has been going around this country trying to promote himself and his party as the party of unity. He made a cold and calculated decision to raise the issue to the national level before the Canadian people when he took national television time to deal with it.
I share the agony of this whole situation with the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal). I am a Canadian and he is a Canadian. I resent the Prime Minister trying to make political capital out of that kind of issue. I resent the Prime Minister of this country trying to suggest that he is the only person who can patriate the constitution. I suggest this kind of approach only demonstrates something that the Canadian people are beginning to understand more and more, namely, that this Prime Minister is less concerned about the issues we are going to face and about giving leadership than he is with his own personal place in history and in hanging on tp power at any cost.
I see that you are coming to your feet, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude my remarks by saying that Canada will survive and become stronger after 1978 when the party of which I am a member becomes the governing party and brings a sense of reason to the governing of this country.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, may I commence my remarks by congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. May I also thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the kind best wishes they have offered me in my new capacity.
Were I once again a private member, I could spend a good deal of time today making glowing references to the Speech from the Throne and taking a few minutes to justly attack the last speaker, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I can only say to him that were he to commit his speech to the form of an advertisement, my department would have to take a very serious look at it under the misleading advertising provisions of the legislation.
October 20, 1976

For a very few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to talk about the work of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have been minister for only one month, and therefore it is only proper that my remarks should be brief since my knowledge of the department is limited. However, I should like to deal with one aspect that has been frequently discussed recently in newspapers, namely, the apparent conflict, as some people view it, between the businessman and the consumer. They are wondering how my department can have the title of Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have attempted to say that someone with some business experience and also some legal experience should not necessarily be denied this position as being completely unfit to serve the consumer. However, the point I should like to make is that this department has some 29 acts within its compass, ranging from competition, bankruptcy, packaging and labelling, textile labelling-a whole variety of areas concerning both the consumer and the business community.
What could perhaps be described as a common thread between these acts is that they deal with the marketplace and there is a genuine coincidence of needs within the department. The task of the department really is to make the marketplace as fair and as efficient as possible. It is not to act as a regulator or as a policeman but, rather, to permit growth of a vigorous and powerful free enterprise community and to see it thrive. At the same time, the department must make certain that the powerful in the marketplace cannot crush the weaker yet efficient members as well.
The emphasis of the department in past years has, it is true, been on the consumer. This has been occasioned by the fact that it is the consumer who is in the weaker position in the marketplace. The need for protection of the consumer is greater than that of the business operator. The fact is that the pendulum may have swung from "Let buyer beware", closer to "Let seller beware". Nonetheless, I suggest that the department takes an even-handed approach in general to the marketplace. I think that even the most vigorous advocate of free enterprise would not wish us to return to the day when P. T. Barnum could exult in the fact that a sucker is born every minute, to be exploited.
The role of the government in the affairs of Canadians is not a new issue but an old one. The fact is that government has played a larger and larger part in our activities, whether it be in regulating agriculture or regulating transportation and communications. There is a large place in the marketplace for government, but it is the underlying philosophy of this government that the marketplace shall not be destroyed or weakened by government but will, hopefully, be enhanced in its efforts. It is in this respect that we in the department are concerned with the introduction of the second phase of the competition bill.
Doing this, I shall only continue the work which has already been accomplished by my predecessors. Each one contributed in his way to this difficult task over the years. I want to
The Address-Mr. Abbott
mention particularly the work done by the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who succeeded in having the first part of the competition policy adopted. Thanks to his patience, his skill, his kindness and his working capacity, he succeeded where others failed.

He demonstrated, under considerable difficulty, at the committee stage what can be done by firm but conciliatory attitudes. I hope that in the months to come as we introduce phase II of the competition policy I can do at least partially as well. The prospects in that bill have aroused considerable concern among all sectors of the economy. I have already had discussions with businessmen and with consumers. There are very difficult policy choices involved, for industry, we know, must be subjected to competition, yet many today are protected by tariff walls, and it is the job, in devising a competition policy, to ensure that industry is able to thrive without damaging less powerful members of that community.
The complaints I have received from small business operators, particularly in the small retailing field, concern the inability of these retailers to purchase in the same advantageous manner in which the large giants of the industry may do. It serves to illustrate my point when I say that here is an example of the difficult choices we have to make in devising the act. We do not wish to eliminate the real efficiencies and advantages conferred by size in purchasing, yet we must deal with the question of how the small retailer or a collection of small retailers may take advantage of volume purchasing.
Therefore, I think that in the next few months this is going to be an important bill which parliament may deal with, and I hope I can serve to persuade my colleagues on all sides of the House of the benefits of this legislation and that it is passed without further delay. It has been a long time arriving.


Mr. Woolliams:: How do the people react?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The people are reacting very positively so far, and I am sure when they see the bill they will react even more positively.
In addition to the competition bill, I hope at a very early stage to introduce legislation dealing with consumer credit. As all members are aware, there has been tremendous growth in this form of borrowing. It is important that in Canada today we have uniform legislation and that we give adequate protection to the borrower to ensure that he or she receives all the information required to make a responsible decision in this area. Therefore, I hope, again, that this legislation will be viewed not as restrictive to those borrowing in the business community, for that is not its intention, and that it will not simply be regarded as a bill designed only to help the consumer, but will be recognized as a valuable piece of legislation that will help the whole marketplace and, of course, the individual consumer.
In addition to this measure, I am hopeful that we will bring in some long overdue legislation which died on the last order paper, concerning bankruptcy and insolvency. Hon. members

October 20, 1976
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
are aware that we are doing studies on the question of trademarks, and perhaps before the end of the session we will be introducing legislation in this area as well.
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that my term in office would justify a lengthy speech and I know you will be relieved to learn that. However, I do want to complete my remarks by dealing with a subject which I think is close to all of us, and that is the question of national unity.
All members on both sides must ask themselves occasionally what accidents of fate brought us together in this place, and for what purpose. So many frustrations, absences from home, demands on time and energy and criticism at every turn surely make this a valid question. For most of us it is a privilege superior to any other that may be extended to a Canadian. But as Canadians drawn from every point of this country, we surely have an obligation not only to make the parliamentary system work but also to convince Canadians from all provinces that Canada is a country worth preserving. It seems almost beyond belief that citizens in a country so uniquely blessed should question whether it is worth preserving as a nation. Surely there are few, if any, members here who do not believe there must be a supreme effort made to preserve our national unity. This is the fundamental issue which lies at the basis of this country's national existence.
Speaking as a Liberal partisan, in what is, I hope, the better sense of the term, I do not support this party and this government because it is always right. I do not support the Liberal government because I have always been in agreement with every policy. I can even look across the floor and see members who would do a very good job as ministers in any government. The real reason I support the Liberal government is that it has at the core of its justification for existence the determination to maintain the unity of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: In doing so, we may have made mistakes. Programs created may need to be changed. But if we on this side desert the basic philosophy that has been our true strength, then not only the Liberal party is doomed but so is Canada. It is not simply because we are the party of Mackenzie King and Mike Pearson, but because we are also the party of Laurier, St. Laurent and Trudeau.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity today to follow the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott). As the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) said, he knows him better than I do and he knew his father. I know the minister will smile at this, but some years ago when I was vice-president of the junior chamber of commerce of Canada, I travelled with Mr. Abbott Sr. and got to know him pretty well. I should like to relate this one incident as I think it will start off my address in the proper atmosphere.

We were driving from Saskatoon to a place called Tisdale. This was in the forties. The federal government, which was then Liberal, had just called an election following a budget in which it had taken the tax off soft drinks. It was a hot day and we stopped in a little village to buy soft drinks. Gordon Blair, who was a member of this House, was with us. We asked for soft drinks, and the young lad at the counter said they would not cost as much that day because Mr. Abbott had taken the tax off. Gordon Blair said that Mr. Abbott was with us in the car. Looking at Mr. Abbott Sr., the young lad said, "If he is Abbott, I am Mackenzie King". He did not realize that he was really looking at Mr. Abbott.
The minister, in his remarks, referred to unity. I am certain that the Liberal party has made a contribution to unity and I am confident that every member of this House of Commons since confederation has basically stood for unity. In fact, the Progressive Conservative party was the party of confederation that brought this country together.
When I hear a line like that, saying that they have some monopoly on unity, I wonder whether there is something wrong at the present time in their own caucus. Perhaps they are bothered not only by the fact that there is disunity in the caucus but also by a feeling that they are perhaps bringing about some disunity across this country. Having said that, I wish to address myself and the House to some of the vital legal concerns of the Canadian people as to the trend being followed by this government, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and by others influencing him in reference to the administration of justice.
Before doing so, I wish to incorporate all the congratulatory words used in this debate by others with regard to both the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both hon. members, namely, the one from Restigouche and the one from Lafontaine-Rosemont, did credit to themselves and this chamber, and tried to do credit to the government in their very thoughtful and able addresses. Congratulations to both hon. members.
Now I wish to deal with three subjects. The first concerns a bill that was introduced and then dropped from the order paper. Both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General presented jointly or in partnership last session a bill, namely, Bill C-83, which died on the order paper because the Liberals let it die. It was entitled "An act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime". It contained amendments and, therefore, changes to the Criminal Code in five fields.
I wish to emphasize that. It did not investigate gun control alone. It legislated also in respect of dangerous offenders who under the Criminal Code are still called habitual criminals. It contained wiretapping legislation to abolish the 90-day notice necessary to be given to the subject after a judge has given authorization to wiretap the subject's telephone. Then it allegedly gave the provinces jurisdiction to conduct special crime inquiries in reference to crime going on within that
October 20, 1976

particular province's borders, on which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled and in respect of which they now have jurisdiction. Then there were the changes in the parole procedure.
So although this bill is referred as the gun control bill, it dealt with five phrases of amendments to the Criminal Code. The government called this legal criminal conglomeration of amendments "the peace and security package". Later it became erroneously known as the gun bill. This is only part of the story. This bill contained 73 pages, 39 pages of which dealt with the use, the storage, the licensing of guns and ammunition. The remainder of the bill dealt with the other four matters I mentioned.
In particular, that portion of the bill dealing with wiretapping gunned down the right to privacy and to civil rights enjoyed by all Canadians during the lifetime of this nation. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs sat 75 hours, held 38 meetings and heard briefs from many national organizations. I might say at the outset that the bill was a bad bill. Even the government member on the committee recognized the flaws in the bill. Finally, the government brought in 54 amendments. Perhaps one or two of them might have been ours. These amendments were approved, but basically, and tragically, the bad features of the bill still remain.
I shall direct my words to that part of the bill which cannot be accepted, condoned or approved. On second reading we moved a motion that the bill be separated so that the gun control amendments could be considered apart from the other four amendments to the Criminal Code. The government refused to accept that motion. The minister spoke against the amendment and the Minister of Justice voted against the amendment, as did all government members.
The minister was trying to ram this multi-conglomeration through parliament, hoping that the people would see the little bit of good that was to be done and overlook a devil of a lot of bad. Apart from the many bad features contained in definitions and other technical parts of the gun control legislation, the government designed a new form of procedure to legislate criminal law, not by parliament but by order in council. This is unacceptable. The legislation of criminal law must be precise. It must be concise and free from ambiguity and, above all, it must be known to people as legislated by parliament, rather than made in a secret chamber by a known or unknown body, such as the federal cabinet.
I listened to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) who referred to the late Mackenzie King. When there is an attempt to deal with legislation by order in council, this is what one of the fathers of that party said in this chamber:
Now let us come to another point which I wish particularly to stress, I refer to the right set out in Magna Carta that no man shall be dispossessed of his rights without the lawful judgment of his peers under the law of the land; not the law as made by the governor in council, not the law as made by some unnamed and as yet unexisting body, but the law of the land as known to everyone. It is an essential principle of liberty and freedom that the law of the land should be known, that it should be so known that every man as he runs may read. The law should not be something which is to make its appearance in the Canada Gazette
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
after some board or governor in council, not parliament, has passed a regulation; it is something that should appear in the statutes of the country.
At the time of the committee hearings, the members of the Progressive Conservative party knew that the government members were going to try to ram through the bill, and the only amendment I could make which was acceptable to the committee and the minister was that these numerous orders in council must be referred to parliament for discussion and debate in this House. But that does not stop the cabinet going ahead now, and it does not stop this or any other cabinet in the future legislating criminal law without the approval of parliament. It does not prevent the cabinet making orders in council as they see fit, or even object to the same. The minister, the government, and some members of the media appear to have failed to appreciate the inherent dangers in such a practice when it affects one's civil rights and liberties in this country.
Let me turn to another feature of Bill C-83. This deals with wiretapping. I am glad to see the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) in the House, because I know he will agree with what I say. I know his views. I know he believes in the perpetuation of civil rights. We find totally unacceptable the fact that the government would call for the abolition of the 90-day notice which must be given to a subject whose telephone is being wiretapped by the police, as authorized by a judge, so that the person may be made aware that his or her private rights have been interfered with. I shall not quote the section of the Criminal Code to which I refer. It is section 178.23(1), which states that the Attorney General of a province or the Solicitor General of Canada shall give notification within 90 days which, if necessary, can be extended by a judge if the investigation involves syndicated crime.
The concerned committee members of the opposition managed to move an amendment to this abolition of notice so that the extention or the abridging of time must not go on indefinitely. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and myself took a very dim view of the subject I am now discussing. The government would not accept anything short of a maximum five-year period. I am totally dissatisfied with this procedure. It is very interesting to note that 556 wiretapping permissions were granted in 1976, that only one was refused and that there were two cases of refused extensions. There were only two cases where extention of time was refused.
I am concerned about solicitor-client conversations being bugged, because communications between a barrister or solicitor and his client are privileged and must be that way if the liberty and freedom of the subject is to be safeguarded. A case in my own city was brought to my attention by a trial lawyer. That case is now before the courts. In that case a conversation between the trial lawyer and his client was bugged. The Crown was able to determine the defence, and the privilege of communication between the solicitor and his client was usurped. I am therefore concerned about the bugging of professional people's private communications.

October 20, 1976
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
I am concerned about private industrial communications being bugged. For example, with regard to exploration and development in the oil industry there is a necessity for secrecy. That is also true in the manufacturing and patent industries. I am concerned about the private communications of public servants being bugged. I am concerned about ail private conversations being bugged unless proper authorization has been granted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Criminal Code.
A time period longer than 90 days simply increases the wiretap powers of the police and removes essential safeguards from citizens. This 90-day notice serves as a safeguard against excessive bugging. The government does not need to extend the 90-day notice because at present the courts have full power to do it anyhow. If notification is repealed altogether, how would section 178.21 have any effectiveness? This provision allows courts to award punitive damages when convicting accused people for unlawful interception. If this were ever to be the case, proper authorities could illegally intercept private communications and the supposed victim would not be aware that he was being observed, because the observation itself would be concealed. The only reason the lawyer to whom I referred knew his telephone was bugged when he was talking to his client was that his client received a notice; otherwise he would not have known. A victim cannot assess the legality of surveillance unless he is notified. Surely he is entitled to that privilege. Only then can the criminal process be initiated.
As I understand the Criminal Code, derivative evidence- and that means evidence which is derived from this source- obtained from illegal wiretapping would be a crime in itself and not admissible under the code. Under the bill the government is trying to bring in, that illegal bugging, although an offence under the Code, would be made admissible against people. That, of course, is contrary to what I understand to be the common law of this country and the civil rights of Canadians. We find legislation suggested in this form unacceptable. When persons here and in the media describe it as gun legislation, they have not read the bill. The nickname is partly correct, though, because the legislation would gun down Canadian civil rights. It would be contrary to the common law and to the Bill of Rights of this country.
Let me deal with another question. At the moment my greatest concern, and the greatest concern of all trial lawyers and those who understand the question of civil liberties, has to do with the recommendation of certain people that we abolish preliminary hearings in criminal cases and abolish the jury system for certain kinds of indictable offences. This week I asked the minister a question in this House and he responded as follows:
I made a speech in Vancouver in which I said that we do not intend to interfere with the jury system, the right of the accused to remain silent, and the protection against self-incrimination . . . but I am not in a position to say at this time whether any bill will be introduced relating to that matter.
What kind of bill is he going to bring in? One on plain white paper? If he is not going to do the things he has been talking about, for what reason does he need a bill? The other day I asked him to come clean; that is why he has been nicknamed

Mr. Clean. I asked him to give answers and not to pussyfoot around. I told him we wanted to know because in the committee we were faced with that monstrosity, Bill C-83, and we may be faced with another monstrosity. It seems to me that this government and this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who before becoming leader of the Liberal party and Prime Minister had the image of a man standing for civil rights are bent on destroying civil liberties as we understand them in the common law of this country.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody said "nonsense." It was that Liberal member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale).


Ralph Goodale: I did not say a word. Get your facts straight, Eldon. You are dead wrong.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry if it was not the hon. member. It was his friend, if that makes any difference, but I will not name his constituency.


Ralph Goodale: You don't know it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister said that he was not in a position to say whether the bill will be introduced. The suggestion to reduce the number of jury trials and abolish preliminary hearings for the purpose of expediting trials is not the answer and has been rejected by the leaders of the criminal section of the Canadian Bar Association.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, we should set up family courts to take out of the jurisdiction of superior courts in the various provinces such matters as divorce and property settlement. That would expedite trials because it would get rid of trial dockets in many centres. Much of the time of superior courts is taken up with divorce work, property settlements and matrimonial affairs. In large urban areas like Toronto or Vancouver we should increase the number of judges to take care of the backlog of cases. These two suggestions would solve the problem without interfering with the private and civil rights of Canadians.
The proposal to eliminate trials by jury, and preliminary hearings, is based on a working paper which I understand was prepared by officials of the Department of Justice. That is rather shocking to me. It is also based on a Law Reform Commission study of pre-trial procedures. The Minister of Justice states that the paper is based on a system of complete Crown disclosure before trial, by which prosecutors would be obliged to disclose, by way of a pre-trial hearing, all of the case against the accused. Through this recommendation it is hoped that many pre-trial and trial delays can be eliminated. However, that is really the very purpose of preliminary hearings. A preliminary hearing is a vehicle by which defence counsel can determine the case against a person. Then when he gets before a judge and jury he can present his case properly. If there are to be any changes leading to fewer preliminary hearings, they should be made with reference to very unimpor-
October 20, 1976

tant charges. I am against any changes with regard to charges which could result in long-term imprisonment.
I seriously question whether one can eliminate the delay and backlog in the system by implementing these new recommendations without affecting the fundamental rights of accused persons. The defence uses the preliminary hearing as a vehicle to find out what the Crown has against the accused and to help in preparing the defence. To eliminate the preliminary hearing would be to revert to the system where a person is guilty until proved innocent. If there are to be any major changes in preliminary hearing procedures or in trial by jury procedures, I want the Minister of Justice to restate the promises he made to the Vancouver judges. I think I should put on the record what he said, because we cannot drag it out of him in the House. He said the following:
But let there be three things made very clear. Firstly, that any changes should not tamper with the jury system.
Thank you, Mr. Minister of Justice.
I need no lectures on the importance of jury trials ... Secondly, I firmly believe that we should not change the basic principles of presumption of innocence and the Crown's onus of proof. Thirdly, I agree that we should not remove the right of the accused to remain silent.
The choosing of 12 ordinary persons to form a jury represents a safeguard and a buffer and is one of the most fundamental parts of our freedom. I wish to quote a Toronto lawyer, the ombudsman of Ontario and a friend of mine, Arthur Maloney, as follows:
Of all the institutions contrived by imperfect man for his own safety and security the jury stands out like a beacon whose glare, far from diminishing, has become more dazzling over the long centuries of its history.
I might add to that, over the long centuries of our judicial history. By even courting proposals such as the reduction in the number of preliminary hearings and jury trials, the Minister of Justice is plunging too far, too fast and too dangerously. The right to be tried by a jury of our peers is as old as Magna Carta. That was one of its terms, and must not lightly be put aside. The right of an accused to remain silent is a fundamental right. One would think that in 1976 it would not be necessary to mention that. The Globe arid Mail supported me in that. I do not always have Geoff Stevens of the Globe and Mail behind me.
We must stand on guard at all times, Mr. Speaker. There has been some suggestion that the Crown would be able to examine the accused on evidence that the Crown, in its opinion, could substantiate. One of the old cases which re-establishes this rule and which the Supreme Court of Canada supports is Ibraham v. The King, (1914) Appeal Cases, 599, a judgment of Lord Lumner which is supported by Canadian courts. At page 609 he said:
It has long been established as a positive rule of English criminal law, that no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been a voluntary statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority.
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
These rules only apply, of course, when statements are made and given by the accused to people in authority. But a new practice is growing up whereby those in authority-and this is more dangerous than ever-the police, the Crown, arbitrarily place the accused person in a mental hospital for the purpose of observation and treatment by either a psychiatrist or psychologist and obtain by_ this method a statement which the police would not be allowed to admit in evidence. These are medical people and not people in authority and an accused will often place confidence in doctors.
I have cases right now where there is some question of the mental stability or mental capacity of the accused. A person was placed in a medical hospital, and not only was he interrogated by the psychiatrist, to whom he gave his whole confidence but, as I was told by the Crown's psychiatrist, he had a blackout. The psychiatrist told me that when you have a blackout and are questioned by a psychiatrist or a psychologist, you try to fill the vacuum. Suppose the person being questioned by a psychiatrist or a psychologist fills the vacuum and says, "I might have done it; I could have done it; I do not know." What effect might that have upon a jury? Mr. Speaker, the police cannot get evidence in like that, so why should it be brought through the back door by medical people hired by the Crown, with the accused ordered to be there by the judge? I say this is very dangerous, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, it is not only dangerous but the law is not very definite on it.
There are many cases, Mr. Speaker, and one which concerns me is an old one which I think was mentioned in the Vallain-court case this year in the Supreme Court of Canada. It is Regina v. Roadhouse (1934) 61 Criminal Cases of Canada, 191. Last, but not least, is the Vallaincourt case (1976) 1 Supreme Court Reports, 13. A very distinguished Montrealer, Professor Kaufman, in his book "Admissibility of Confessions" had this to say:
These statements are suggestive of guilt and the point of law is raised that this evidence was inadmissible because the accused, being in custody and handed over temporarily for treatment while police officers remained in close attendance (without, however, so far as the evidence shows, hearing the statements) the doctor must in law be regarded as a person in authority.
But the court disagreed and said:
Ordinarily a person in authority is one engaged in the "arrest, detention, examination, or prosecution" of the accused... Dr. Shaw stood in the same position as the wife of an arresting officer if the accused had been taken to his home for first-aid treatment at her hands, administered under the circumstances disclosed in this case. The doctor was not deputized by the police to act on their behalf nor was he performing any function-
The Statement made to the doctors was therefore admitted as evidence. I say this is a dangerous process, Mr. Speaker. If in this speech I have left any impression at all, I hope it is that the liberty and freedom of the subject is all-important. I think this House knows where I stand on crime. Certainly, those who commit-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You are against it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am certainly against the wrong kind of evidence. It is better to let one guilty person go free than to

October 20, 1976
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
hang ten innocent people or send them to jail. I say the Minister of Justice should look at this matter.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who believes that the only evidence that should be admitted is on the test of truth. When a person is induced, or falsely or fraudulently encouraged by psychiatrists or psychologists to try to fill the vacuum of things they do not know are the complete truth, that should be disregarded as evidence.
In the matters that I have mentioned today, if the steps that this government seems to be taking are to be the funeral of liberty and freedom and the end of the fundamental right to be tried by a jury of our peers, then I would not think this Minister of Justice would even want to be an honorary pallbearer at that funeral.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I want to say a few words on the subject of food and agriculture. I see the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goo-dale) sitting by, anxiously waiting to pick up some valuable information to take back to his constituents.
I wish to introduce something a little different this afternoon. I want to speak about what I think is going to be a real problem, not only today but in the future, in the area of food and agriculture. I, for one, believe that by the end of this century we will have a real crisis in the shortage of food and protein in the world community. All we have to do is look at some of the population statistics. The world's population is about four billion, and we are unable to feed them all. Some say that about 16,000 people die of starvation every day, while thousands of others die of diseases connected with some form of malnutrition.
If present trends continue, the world's population will probably double by the year 2000. If we cannot feed the people now, how will we do it a few years ahead unless the programs of this and other governments change radically? I think we must realize, however, that this country obviously cannot feed the hungry of the world. We would be misleading ourselves to think we could be the food basket of the world community. I think we do have a role to play, however, in helping to feed other people by maximizing food production in this country. Our prime object as a nation, however, must be to help other countries to become self-reliant, to be able to feed themselves. We must provide the proper technology and know-how to enable them to produce their own food in quantities sufficient to feed their own people.
We not only have to be concerned about the problem of food in the world, but about the problem of food in our own country. Many people think that we have no food problem in Canada because we produce efficiently and no one goes hungry. But it is not quite that simple, Mr. Speaker. A study produced by the Food Prices Review Board about a year ago pointed out that about 70 per cent of old age pensioners in Canada suffered from a lack of calcium in their diet. Yet we recently had a surplus of various milk products. Before it folded, that same board said that about 40 per cent of the
[Mr. WoolIiams.J
hospital days in Canada could possibly be linked to bad nutrition.


An hon. Member:: And alcohol.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Alcohol too. Think of the junk foods- children in school drinking Cokes and Pepsis, eating hot dogs, hamburgers, chips, candies, chocolate bars and all kinds of really junky foods. I am glad the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) is here, because I know she is concerned about this. If we had sensible policies and proper programs we could get rid of the Coke machines and other things in the schools and provide milk and fresh fruit and vegetables instead.
If the Food Prices Review Board is right in saying that about 40 per cent of hospital days are connected with malnutrition, just think how we could bring down the cost of medicare and hospital accommodation through a good program of nutrition. Many diseases and health problems could be prevented. We will not have good policies in this country, however, unless we devise a comprehensive food and agricultural program, one that is integrated and takes into account the interests of the producer and the consumer. We need a farm program which will guarantee farmers a decent income and make sure they are able to stay on the land. At the same time, we need a program which will encourage the production of food for the consumer at the lowest possible cost, so that all the people of Canada can afford to buy good food at reasonable prices.
Ahead of us I see many serious difficulties. I see a crisis facing this country in the future. I see, as does the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), the threat which large, powerful corporations in the agricultural field pose to the way of life of farmers and the existence of orderly marketing, farm organizations and individual farms. I see a crisis ahead to do with the use of our farm land.
Let us consider our land. We are one of the few countries of the world able to produce a massive surplus of food if we put our minds to it. If we grow all the food we can, we shall contribute to the well-being of the world's peoples, fortify our rural economy, allow farmers to prosper and set this country on its feet economically, because the end result of this process would be full employment. Mr. Speaker, we have one half of 1 per cent of the world population, and 3 per cent of the world's arable, food-producing land. What is to happen to that land? There is little control over the land in most of Canada. Every day much of our good land goes out of production. Just look at the statistics if you want to see what is happening. They are terrifying.
This country's urban centres cover 0.4 per cent of the nation's land surface; and remember most of our land cannot be used for farming. Only about 4 per cent of it is suitable for farming. Most of our urban centres, our cities, suburbs and factories, highways and hydro lines are built on this country's prime farmland. Most of the urban expansion in Canada
October 20, 1976

gobbles up good, arable farmland. If this country's urban population doubles, the amount of good, available farmland will be reduced by one-third. I repeat, if the urban population of Canada doubles, and it will double in not many years, and if we do nothing to preserve our farmland, our available farmland will be reduced by one-third. When that happens, we shall run into serious difficulties.
The Agrologist magazine said a short time ago that, given our present eating habits and technology, we could feed up to 50 million people in this country. On the other hand, if we begin to reduce the quantity of available arable land, it will not be long before we may not produce enough to feed ourselves and we shall need to import some food.
As I said, only 4 per cent of our land surface can be used for farming. That is to say, 164.15 million acres of land can be used for farming. At present we farm 107.8 million acres. In most cases only the prime agricultural land is in use. Marginal, less productive land, is not generally in use because it is more costly and less economic to farm. Every time this country's population rises by 1,000, the extra 1,000 people consume, for houses, schools, highways, and so on, between 360 acres and 1,700 acres. When you extend our urban regions, good farmland disappears. That lost farmland will not produce food in future. Therefore, why do we continue this process? Land does not grow on trees, Mr. Speaker; once it is paved over, it will not grow food.
I ask, why is this happening? The reason is that these matters are determined by the workings of the so-called free market. Around the major cities in almost every part of this country developers exercise absolute control over how they will dispose of land. Little has been done in this country to protect our farmland, to make sure it is used only for farming and not for the expansion of cities, highways and factories. These, where possible, must not be built on prime farmland. Mr. Speaker, 96 per cent of this country's land surface cannot be used for farming.
The present situation has arisen because of the federal government's abysmal record in leadership. It has done nothing to preserve farmland and has not brought forward an adequate farm policy which could serve this nation in future. So far as I know, only two provinces have acted to preserve farmland. One is my native Saskatchewan, which introduced a land banking program which is working well; the other is British Columbia-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -which has legislated the preservation of farmland for farm use only. The attitude of the other provinces with Liberal and Conservative governments and politicians has been that governments, provinces and municipalities should not interfere with the free enterprise system. They think that this country's future should be left in the hands of developers and speculators. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, if we want to grow enough food for our own people and help other people in the world. We must face the question squarely. I do not see how any Liberal can argue that the federal government
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
has shown leadership in this area. The question is most serious and will become even more serious within 20 or 25 years unless we act.
If we are to grow enough food in future, we must make sure that farmers remain on the land and earn a stable income. I heard the suggestion not long ago that our farmers are prosperous now that grain prices are high. Mr. Speaker, such prices are not stable. Prices for the grain producer were high, but the price has recently fallen by $1.04 per bushel. Prices are lower than they were three months ago. The price of other farm commodities is also falling. Also, we all know of the difficulties of the cow-calf producer. Many of them are going bankrupt. Many mixed farmers face hard times.
You see, in my constituency and the constituency of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, a great deal of rural poverty. Some farmers in my riding do not have in their homes water and sewer facilities and the other modern amenities which we in this House take for granted. The same can be said of farmers all across this country-in Quebec, New Brunswick and other areas. Their story is the same.
I bring these problems forward to show that our stabilization legislation is not the only answer If it were, farmers would not be forced to leave the land. Too many decisions affecting the land are made by big concerns. In the process, the small producer is forgotten. Companies like Cargill, about which the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre spoke, are moving into this country and exercising ever more control over the food industry and food prices. The dominance of such companies poses a threat to our Canadian way of life. Do we want control of this major industry, agriculture, concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, or do we want to maintain our present way of life? Do we want to maintain what most farmers favour, a system of orderly marketing, wheat pools, co-operatives and marketing boards which give the farmer some clout in the marketplace?
Let us examine some of our other difficulties. Some time ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, put feed grains on the open market. By so doing he took away some of the foundation for stable farm income. He allowed feed grains to be traded on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, thereby giving the exchange with which the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) is connected influence over the price the farmer was to receive for that product. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre documented how large, multinational corporations involved in the grain business are moving into this country's prairie provinces. He told the House what would happen if they build huge inland terminals. I ask, where does the Conservative party stand with respect to these large inland terminals being either constructed or proposed on the prairie provinces? The effect of these terminals will be this: smaller elevators all over the prairies will be closed and more and more power and wealth will be concentrated in the hands of huge corporations.

October 20,1976
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
What is going to happen to rural society with the abandonment of rail lines? What is going to happen to the consumer if nothing is done about the immense power of some of the processors, retailers and wholesalers in this country? What will happen as corporations get larger and have more say about the price people pay for food? I need only refer to the last report of the Food Prices Review Board which pointed out that there are four large retailers in this country, Weston-Loblaws, Safeway, Dominion stores and Steinbergs. They control a very large proportion of the retail food markets in Canada. In places such as the prairies, between 80 and 90 per cent of the market is controlled by three or four of these large corporations. Is there any competition when these large corporate giants get together? I suggest there is not.
If the large corporations such as Cargill Grain, Continental Grain and a number of others south of the border continue to move into the producing sector, what will happen to the price of food in this country? Food is too important to be left to the private sector. Food is the right of all Canadians. The price of food should be controlled by those who produce food and by the people who consume it.
More assistance should be given to the farmers, particularly those with small farms and those who want to begin farming. There should be marketing boards for farm commodities, so that the producers can have some clout in the marketplace with regard to the remuneration they receive. One need only look at one area to see what I mean. I refer to the cow-calf producer. Recently, in my constituency, I talked to farmers who had sold young calves in the marketplace for as low as $20 and $30. What happens at the retail and when a person is buying this beef a Weston-Loblaws, Safeway or a Steinberg store here in Ottawa? That drop in price which the producer is suffering is not being reflected at the retail end when someone is purchasing it.
It is a real crime for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to get up in this House time and again and give us the same old baloney about agriculture and how difficult it is to do anything for the cow-calf producer, even though he has not produced any program for them. The provinces had to act unilaterally to provide assistance for cow-calf producers. Alberta put $40 million into a plan. Saskatchewan put $32 million into a plan in order to stop cow-calf producers going out of production. However, the Minister of Agriculture refuses to put any money into a plan to try and help cow-calf producers. It is not just the cow-calf producer who will suffer. It is not just the fact that the small farmer will be put out of business. In the long run, it will be the consumer who will suffer.
Farmers will sell their cows more and more rapidly as the price of beef to the producer drops. In a few years there will be a shortage of beef in this country. Prices will skyrocket as the retailers and wholesalers have a virtual monopoly. The consumer will be ripped-off, having to pay very high prices. The government will then have a real problem. If cattle and beef are left on the open market and the price of these commodities
[Mr. Nystrom.)
is controlled by speculators, huge corporations, packing houses and retail companies, there will be a real problem. What we need at this time is a national beef marketing agency or board that will stabilize the price of beef in this country. The Minister of Agriculture says he is in favour of that. I would like to see him give some leadership in promoting this idea.
The minister should hold a plebiscite to determine whether cattle producers in this country want a marketing agency. If such a plebiscite were held, I believe the vote would be a resounding "yes." The hon. member for Assiniboia may have some large ranches in his constituency. However, if hd visits my constituency he will Find that the overwhelming majority of farmers want a beef marketing agency. I need only refer to a meeting that took place in northwestern Saskatchewan a few days ago. The group of farmers who gathered there ^ngrily demanded a national marketing board for beef. Organizations are being formed in my constituency by ordinary farmers, not the huge cattle ranchers. They do not believe the Canadian Cattlemen's Association speaks for them. They want a national marketing agency. They want some protection in the marketplace. Why should the price of their labour be determined by Canada Packers, Burns, the huge retail stores in this country, or speculators in the United States? Why not a marketing board for beef so that the farmers have some clout and some say about what they will get for their commodity? The farmers should get some benefit for their labour.
I sometimes become rather annoyed with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and their political organs such as the hon. member for Assiniboia, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt and some of the Tories who a few years ago said they did not want any government involvement or interference, that they were free enterprises in a free market. Now the price of cattle is falling and these same people in the Cattlemen's Association want some support. They say they are suffering in the so-called free enterprise economy which they fought so hard to preserve. Support should be given to the small beef farmer now. At the same time, we should ensure that he has a marketing agency or board when times are good as well as when they are bad. Let us have some consistency in the cattle policy of this country.
There is something else I want to mention before my time runs out. A very important issue will soon be debated on the prairies. A few years ago the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board took domestic feed grains out of the purview of the Wheat Board. He promised the western farmers a plebiscite on feed grains being taken out of the Wheat Board. Recently he announced that a plebiscite would be held. It may be late, but he says it will be held. We do not know what question will be asked, or who will have the right to vote. We want the minister to give the prairie farmers a chance to have all grains produced on the prairies under the purview of the Canadian Wheat Board.
There will be a real Fight on the prairies. Huge businesses, the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, the Liberal party and many of the Conservative party will support keeping feed grains on the open market. There is going to be a fight. It is going to be one
October 20, 1976

of the biggest fights we have seen on the prairies. I should like to quote from the Globe and Mail. On October 15, the Globe and Mail carried an article entitled "Grain marketing plebiscite called crucial test confronting farmers". I quote:
A forthcoming plebiscite on Canada's grain marketing system is shaping up as one of the most crucial tests ever to confront the private grain industry, according to R. S. Ennis, president of the Winnipeg Commodities Exchange.
The president of the Winnipeg Commodities Exchange made it clear he was attempting to influence farmers to vote for a continuing role for the private grain industry. "In the coming year it will be necessary for each one of us to make the benefits of free marketing known to the public.''
The Winnipeg Grain Exchange is going to be involved in this campaign. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that my party will also be involved in the campaign, but on the other side. We believe the government should know why it should place all prairie grains within the purview of the Wheat Board. If the hon. member for Assiniboia does not agree, he can debate this issue with me in my constituency any time he wishes. I am absolutely confident that the wheat pools in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, together with the UGG, the National Farmers' Union, the Federation of Agriculture, as well as the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, would agree that all prairie grains should come under the purview of the Wheat Board.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Give the farmers a chance to vote.


An hon. Member:: What about Alberta?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I don't know about "Peter the Red" in Alberta or some of his boys, but I know where the premier of Saskatchewan stands. I know where the premier of Manitoba stands. I know where the farm organizations stand. I also know where some of the Liberal farm organizations like the Palliser Wheat Growers stand. They stand on the other side, fighting for grains to be on the open market. I ask this question: Why should food be speculated with like dice in a casino?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why should farmers have to take less than the market price?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why should food produced by the farmer be under the control of speculators?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Parasites.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why should not the farmer, having produced that food, reap all the benefits along with the consumer, the latter having the advantage of a lower price at the other end? This is the important issue we are facing in the west. It is one which has been with us a number of years, one which we believe we had disposed of until the Minister of Transport began to play around with the power of the Wheat Board.
I remember my grandfather telling me stories a few years ago about the days before the Wheat Board. He told me that in the fall of the year farmers would sell their grain because they had to pay taxes, buy clothes for their children for the
The Address-Mr. J. R. Gauthier winter and meet a number of other seasonal expenses. So they would all go to the elevators to sell their grain. They didn't have any clout; there was no marketing board. The price would fall to a few cents a bushel. But in the winter months the speculators who had purchased that grain were able to sell it for much more than they had paid. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a Wheat Board which ensures that there is a uniform price paid for wheat and we in this party want to put all grain under the purview of the board.
Thus, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "Australia and New Zealand", the following:
"the need to put the marketing of all prairie grains under the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board".


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. We must recognize that our colleagues from Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) and Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) are excellent members devoted to their ridings. Furthermore, they have proved both in the House of Commons and in committees that they are outstanding parliamentarians.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to deal with two themes. I am personally interested in the first one, namely the situation of French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, and the second may perhaps interest more particularly those who are set on the question of "bilingualisation" or the learning of a second language, namely the problems we are now facing in Canada when it comes to learning the official languages and the important role of the federal government in this area. How far can we in the federal government go in the field of education without transgressing section 93 of the British North America Act?
Mr. Speaker, as parliamentary secretary, I had the opportunity to travel throughout the country this year. So, I met Canadians from both the east and the west. In addition to fulfilling my official duties, I tried to urge those people to give me their reactions or to tell me how we should build Canada.
As all hon. members, I had the opportunity to read erroneous quotations, in Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa, Halifax, Quebec City or in other places. I would like to read some of them and, surely, they will not surprise anybody. Here is the first erroneous quotation:
The federal government is shoving French down English throats.
The second erroneous quotation:
Bilingualism is a goal of the Liberal party alone.
The third erroneous quotation:
French Canadians outside Quebec are just picturesque. They mix with the English-speaking majority at a frightening rate.
The few remarks I was quoting, Mr. Speaker, were not concocted by some biased newspapermen, but actual comments from Canadians. We are certainly faced with a problem

October 20, 1976
The Address-Mr. J. R. Gauthier of a national nature. Intolerance, bigotry, even empty gibes often verge on a mild form of racism. The Larousse dictionary defines racism as follows: "A system asserting the superiority of one racial group over the others, urging in particular the segregation of the latter within a country, or even aiming at the extermination of some minority".
Evidently, many Canadians are ignorant of this country's history. More disturbing still, the majority of Canadians, both in English-speaking provinces and in Quebec, are not aware that there are outside Quebec nearly one million Canadians having French as their mother tongue.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to speak about this group of French-speaking Canadians who live outside Quebec and who often have to make the best of difficult situations. There are one million of them, responsible for the future of a united Canada and respectful of the rights of minorities. These people-who, unfortunately, are too often forgotten-exist and 1 am one of them. According to our ability, we can and we wish to render great services to our country, if we are allowed to do so. We have proved our perseverance and our strength while respecting others' rights. We have fought for our rights, we have overcome a law which prohibited education in our mother tongue, we have survived although we were refused education in our language subsidized by public funds; we have struggled with firmness and today, longing for better understanding, we continue to fight in our quest for legislation which is supposed to promote justice.
French-speaking Canadians are not just another ethnic group. As co-founders of this country, they are on equal terms with the English-speaking majority. Canada's identity is altogether different from that of any other country. Canada is a nation which gathers together two cultures, each of whom can, thanks to its heritage and its ancestral characteristics, work in conjunction with the other to obtain results of the highest quality. There is a third group in Canada which plays an increasingly important and active part in every aspect of Canadian life and which is of neither French nor English origin. I am of course referring to Canadians from various ethnic groups who have deliberately chosen to leave their home country to find a better life and a more promising future. Of their own initiative, these people have decided to adopt our country. According to dictionaries, the word "adopt" is defined as follows; to choose and use as one's own... to accept. That is precisely what these people did: they considered opportunities for a better future in Canada, they knew what they would find in Canada if they came over, they accepted her for what she is worth and made her their own country, that of their children and of future generations.
True, most of these new Canadians, after starting their new homes, have predominantly gravitated toward the English language; it is also true that they were not always made aware of the presence of French-speaking Canadians, nor exposed to the French language or culture. For reasons which are readily understandable, many Canadians have come to place French-
[Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).l
speaking Canadians with the Danes, the Ukrainians, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, and many more. I noted, especially in western Canada, that majority ethnic groups often refer to the following argument: Would it not be more logical and more profitable for the English-speaking majority to learn Ukrainian for instance instead of French? Such reasoning does not recognize that the federal government is the government of all Canadians; that it must look after the whole country and it must legislate according to national interest. For that reason, the central government does not meet only the needs of a particular city or area, it must answer the needs of the whole country. Nothing prevents Canadians from speaking several languages. But that is not the responsibility of the federal government. Indeed, we favour them by our multicultural policy.
However, the federal government as the government of all Canadians tries to meet national needs with its official language policy. That is where our responsibility lies and why we have an official language policy. I wish to come back to those erroneous quotations: The federal government is shoving French down English throats. No need for me to dwell on that false concept from which so many conflicts spring. The federal government does not impose French on anyone. Unless you are a federal public servant whose position requires both French and English, you do not need to learn either French or English. Some civil servants are bilingual now but the people they serve are not.
It is precisely because of the decision no longer to impose English on French Canadians that some ten years ago the government put forward its official languages policy. So there is no such thing as imposing or forcing anyone to learn a second language. Let us say simply that the immediate objective of the Official Languages Act is to make the government bilingual, not the citizens it serves.
When the Liberal government introduced the Official Languages Act in 1968, we got the support of all parties represented in the House of Commons. We may discuss the way to implement the policy but the principle of bilingualism remains unchanged. Of course, the government must continue to seek new and better formulas. Personally, I am convinced that we must absolutely turn our priorities toward the survival and expansion of French-speaking minority groups in Canada.
If, on the one hand, considerable amounts of money had to be spent to make the federal civil service bilingual, in many cases allowing unilingual positions to become bilingual, I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, of the importance for Canada to turn our national priorities toward the survival and expansion of French-speaking minority groups in Canada. However considerable, the amounts of money spent to date on federal and provincial programs were justified. On the one hand, a civil service with an English-speaking majority had to be changed to make it receptive and hospitable to French-speaking and bilingual Canadians. On the other hand, we must support the learning of the second language in schools. We must now- and time is running out-provide serious assistance to Frenchspeaking minorities outside Quebec.
October 20, 1976

Here is an erroneous quotation: "French Canadians outside Quebec are just picturesque. They mix with the English-speaking majority at a frightening rate". PQ members repeat it every day. If there no longer exists a French-speaking minority in English majority provinces in a little while, what is the purpose of spending millions of dollars to put up a bilingual service if there are no Canadians speaking French? It is therefore very important for me to emphasize services to French-speaking minorities outside Quebec so as to ensure their survival and development. French-speaking minorities outside Quebec are for the most part bilingual. Their motivation for becoming bilingual at an early age is essentially an economic one and a social reality. However, I do not think I am wrong in saying that when English-speaking unilinguals learn a second language, their motivation is essentially cultural, and consequently much weaker.
Millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt to help unilingual senior civil servants become bilingual. The figure of $300 million a year has been mentioned. Only 1 per cent of this amount is used for the promotion, survival and support of French-speaking people outside Quebec. Considerable amounts have also been spent with the help of the provinces to promote the teaching of both official languages in our schools. For nearly six years, the federal government has been contributing substantially to the education of official language minority groups and has also been supporting financially the teaching of a second language. Mr. Speaker, six years is not a long time.
We must not forget that, in the past, in the provinces inhabited by large groups of Canadians whose mother tongue is French, these groups did not have equal opportunities for education and that, consequently, until 1968, most of them, or 85 per cent, dropped out of school without finishing the tenth grade. This was not because they were more stupid or not as motivated, it was simply because they did not have access to the funds which would have allowed them to continue their education in French language private institutions or even in the English language public system of that time which was not designed to meet their needs.
Mr. Speaker, we have had French language high schools in Ontario for only six years. Since then, the number of students in Ottawa itself and throughout the province has tripled. Later on, I shall quote figures concerning the number of students enrolled. Since education is so important for any society and because of the difficulty faced throughout our history by French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, I would like to give a more recent and more encouraging picture, at least as concerns my own province, Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I gathered recent statistics about school attendance for the French-speaking minority in Ontario and about the number of pupils in English schools who study French as a second language. In the elementary, the number of children attending French schools in Ontario is steadily decreasing. That is probably due to the declining birth rate
The Address-Mr. J. R. Gauthier and also, I am afraid, to the rate of assimilation into the English-speaking majority, which is rather worrying. In 196970 there were 90,397 French-speaking children in elementary schools; that number is down to 77,568 for the academic year 1975-76.
At the secondary level, figures are a little more encouraging, and vindicate the education policy of the province of Ontario in opening French secondary schools since 1969. That year, the French high-school population was 21,590; now in 197576, it is 31,442. Those high school graduates are naturally moving up to post secondary or university education.
At the high school level, we witness an encouraging increase in attendance at post-secondary institutions by the francophone minority. The Algonquin Community College, with
6,000	students, records a marked increase in francophone registrations for the school year 1974-75. As a matter of fact, full time students attending courses given in French now account for nearly 22 per cent of the college population.
At the university level, four institutions are providing courses in French. They are Hearst College, Universite Lau-rentienne, Ottawa University and St. Paul's University. There were 5,132 francophone students attending these institutions in the school year 1974-75, which represents 37 p. 100 of the total incriptions in these institutions. The projections for 197778 indicate 5,836 students, or 41.1 per cent.
It is encouraging, Mr. Speaker, to realize that the francophone minority in Ontario is seeking in increasingly larger number a more complete education and therefore greater competence.
As regards the number of English-speaking students registered in elementary schools, statistics show renewed interest in second language learning in Ontario. It is interesting to note that 569,756 students or 39.1 per cent of the school enrolment took French courses as a second language in 1971 and that progressively that number rose to 651,669 in 1975; in other words, 46.9 per cent of English-speaking students registered in English schools took French as a second language.
In high school, the situation is not so encouraging. Where 243,135 students registered for French courses in September 1971, which represented 42.3 per cent of the Ontario population, in 1975 there were only 195, 234 students or 32.3 per cent of the total secondary school enrollment. Obviously then the secondary level registered a sharp decline in second language learning.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the figures I just quoted show the seriousness of the school policy as regards French-speaking students at the secondary level in Ontario; they also show the seriousness of parents who steered their children towards elementary shools that give second language training. Yet it is alarming to realize that at the secondary level there is growing apathy towards learning a second language and that the students, because of a very permissive system, drop the second language option, be it English or French.
An important factor in the motivation for learning a second language is certainly the lack of leadership in our Canadian
286

October 20, 1976
The Address-Mr. J. R. Gauthier universities. In fact, in recent years Canadian universities have dropped either French or English as a prerequisite for admission to their institutions. Let us hope that Canadian universities will soon realize the merits of language training and that as a prerequisite they will demand language proficiency obtained at the secondary level.
When considering the role of the federal government in the field of minority group education, the problem is considered in relation to language policies, policies which are part of Canadian everyday life. Moreover, those language policies must be considered not only in relation to their effect on equality of learning opportunities, but also in relation to social and professional mobility, as well as to relationships between populations.
In Canada, English is the mother tongue spoken by 60 per cent of Canadians, French by 27 per cent, and a variety of other languages by 13 per cent. Moreover, French-speaking people are not limited to the province of Quebec. Indeed, French-speaking people are also found in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Finally, in certain provinces like New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, there are regions where French-speaking people are the majority.
To this main linguistic division, English-French, we must add linguistic differences of people of Indian or Eskimo origin as well as differences stemming from very diversified groups who wish to maintain contact with their initial cultural background. This category is made up of about three million people. Therefore we must add multiculturalism to the official bilingualism. No need to remind the House that the Confederation was based upon an agreement between two distinct linguistic communities referred to in section 133 of the British North America Act.
Since 1969, the federal act on the implementation of both officials languages has strengthened the bilingual character of Canada. Indeed, this law stipulates that English and French are the official languages of Canada and possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada. The option so selected consists in admitting that Canada is in a position to enable both languages and, consequently, both English and French culture to take part in the economic, social and political life throughout the country. To these ends, the federal government established a generous help program for the provinces to enable them to offer teaching in the minority language, and the teaching of the second language, English or French, according to the case. Federal assistance amounts to about $100 million a year.
According to Canadian practices, the provinces are responsible for the implementation of the federal programs of assistance to bilingualism. Consequently, the establishment of policies on bilingualism is made in different ways and is based on different structures. This question of assistance to bilingual teaching gives a good illustration of the difficulties and the ambiguities we notice when the federal government is prepared to give credits, and the provinces, for constitutional reasons,

want to avoid even the appearance of a communication with Ottawa.
In view of the sensitive nature of those relations, it is hard to say whether the objective of assistance to bilingualism can be achieved through education. I recognize, like many others, the merits of that hope and the willingness to achieve it. But the fact remains that the implementation of bilingualism in schools is not uniformly successful. One recognizes readily that immersion programs in kindergartens, primary and secondary schools are successful. However, one must admit that there is an insufficient number of organized courses, that there is a shortage of qualified teachers in that field. In this regard, worthy efforts are being made by granting bursaries to 5,000 teachers to enable them to get the proper training. Since 1973, efforts have been made to train teachers; those efforts should considerably improve the quality of their training for that profession.
I am of those, Mr. Speaker, who have often criticized the use the provinces made of federal funds earmarked for the official languages program. With several others, I share doubts about the use made of those funds and I recognize the constitutional limitations that restrict the federal government in its role as watch dog over the setting up of those programs and the spending of the funds.
French-speaking Canadians residing outside Quebec often deplore the lack of administrative and educational structures; they often call to our attention the powers of local school boards, seldom willing to set up French language schools or training courses in the second language; and finally, we often see a position through which the authorities want to "bilingu-alize" the institutions of these francophone Canadians, a situation which is not likely to help them keep their mother tongue nor, the way I see it, is it likely to encourage them to learn English.
It goes without saying that bilingualism is one of the most important political problems of the Canadian federation or Confederation, a problem which, in spite of the advancement achieved, can have a critical impact on the education policy. The main problem lies in that while French is considered to be the equal of English as one of the two official languages, that position remains nonetheless quite unequal.
And so it is that the French-speaking minority in Canada, whether implicitly or explicitly, requires a special kind of protection, greater than that of official equality, in order to defend itself against the risk of anglicization. Francophones, particularly those residing outside Quebec, maintain not without reason that the constitutional French-speaking element of the Canadian federation is an essential part of the creation and maintenance of separate national identities. Indeed, without the strong attachment of the French-speaking community to its language and its culture, such a national identity would have been absorbed in the greater context of English-speaking North America. That is enough to justify the need to take measures which promote a French culture in Canada with the support of the federal government, since it is the only way to create a national Canadian spirit comprising both cultures.
October 20, 1976

Expenditures earmarked for second language courses should aim mostly at preserving the French language in every part of the provinces with a high percentage of Francophones. In this regard, I readily endorse a recommendation contained in the examiners' report on the organization for Economic Corporation and Development (OECD) concerning the need to establish in Canada a national education council. In their report, published in August, 1976, the OECD examiners proposed the establishment of a national education council subsidized by the federal government and responsible for the development of French culture in Canada.
I urge hon. members to obtain a copy of a study I commissioned to Mr. Henri-Georges Belleau, of the research section of the Library of Parliament, dated October 15, 1976. I want to thank and command Mr. Belleau for his well-documented and very interesting paper. I had asked Mr. Belleau to do research on two points. First, I had asked him to summarize the OCED report on educational policies in Canada and then to examine the following question: How far can the Federal government go, as far as educational matters are concerned, without infringing the BNA Act? I would like to read into the record the conclusions of Mr. Belleau's study. I quote:
We have seen that the federal government does not deal directly or officially with educational matters. The involment of the federal government is by means of grants and transfer payments for post-secondary education; in addition, training courses are provided by the Department of Manpower and Immigration ...
Finally, as far as the training in a second language is concerned, we should aim to maintain the French language as a living language in all areas of the provinces where there is a well-established French-speaking community. Besides, the OCED investigators would recommend the creation of a national council financed by the federal government, which would promote the development of the French culture.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, if one wishes to maintain, develop and promote a Canada in which the French language will not be used extensively only in Quebec and considered elsewhere as a bit of folklore, we will have to try and support French-speaking communities outside Quebec that will show a common will to respect, promote and maintain the survival and growth of their language. If French to be used exclusively in Quebec and English in all other part of Canada, we are shifting dangerously towards a separation. What is the use of the federal governement promoting this pan-Canadian institutionalized bilingualism if in fact the bilingual services are not needed?
Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who have faith in the future and who sincerely think that we can build a country respectful and proud of its history, of its various elements and of its differences. We are not talking about a uniform Canada, we are talking about a united Canada.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the constituency adjoining my own, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has
The Address-Mr. Ritchie moved me to say a few words and suggest that we on this side of the House will be unable to support the subamendment. I feel it is not at all in keeping with the amendments presented by my party and, in effect, would destroy the effectiveness of our amendment, which cites the lack of co-ordination between federal and provincial authorities involving the management of our agriculture in general. In particular, it detracts from the very serious problems faced by the beef industry as a result of excessive imports of beef from Australia and New Zealand. This beef problem obviously is one of the most important questions facing farmers both in western Canada and all across the country. Indeed, it affects the farmers in Australia, New Zealand and the United States.
In his subamendment the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville cites the need to place the marketing of all prairie grains under the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Surely this is something which should be decided by the producers. I might remind my friends that the wheat pools, the UGG and the NFU do not necessarily speak completely for their rank and file. Certainly, many farmers have shown their opposition to having feed grains placed under the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Some time ago a plebescite was held relating to rapeseed. At that time the growers did not wish to have their grain under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. We may feel it was an incorrect decision, but it was their decision. I think we, as members of this House, must be aware of the very important fact that the growers should be the people who make the decision as to whether or not their grains should come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The problems of the Wheat Board are great. It is easy for the Wheat Board to sell on world markets and satisfy the growers and all segments of our country, but the problem is different when the Wheat Board must be a buyer and a seller within our country.
What about the problems we experienced in respect of feed grains in 1969 and 1970? How would they have been solved? So I suggest this is not the way in which the feed grain, rapeseed or flax situations should be solved without a plebescite of the growers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of Standing Order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of any amendment or amendments now before the House.
The question, therefore, is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
80001 - 1914

October 20, 1976
The Address-Mr. Ritchie


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The question, therefore, is on the amendment of the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise).
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Wise) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 4)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alkenbrack
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Bawden
Beatty
Benjamin
Blackburn
Broadbent
Caouette
(Villeneuve)
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cossitt Crouse Darling Diefenbaker Dinsdale Dionne
Halliday
Hargrave
Hees
Hnatyshyn Hogan Holmes Huntington Hurlburt Jarvis Jelinek Kempling Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Laprise La Salle MacDonald
Murta
Neil
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
O'Sullivan
Paproski
Patterson
Peters
Reynolds
Ritchie
Roche
Rodriguez
Rynard
Saltsman
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Skoreyko
Stanfield
Clarke	Gendron	Lefebvre	(Kamouraska)	(Egmont)	Stewart(Vancouver Quadra)	Gillespie	Lessard	Douglas	MacKay	(Marquette)Clermont	Goodale	Loiselle	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	Malone	SymesCoates	Goyer	(Chambly)	The Islands)	Matte	TowersCollenette	Grafftey	Loiselle	Ellis	Mazankowski	WagnerCondon	Guay	(Saint-Henri)	Elzinga	McCain	WenmanCorbin	(St. Boniface)	Lumley	Epp	McCleave	WhitewayCorriveau	Guay	MacDonald	Firth	McGrath	WhittakerCossitt	(Levis)	(Cardigan)	Forrestall	McKenzie	WiseCo\t	Guilbault	MacDonald	Friesen	McKinnon	WoolliamsCrouse	Haidasz	(Egmont)	Gilbert	Mitges	Yewchuk-85Cullen	Halliday	Grafftey	Muir	
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
October 20, 1976


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 6:05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 21, 1976