1977-06-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43, concerning Hydroculture Luwasa Canada Limited, possible conflict of interest and illegalities existing on the part of certain persons and press comments today by the Prime Minister's principal secretary, James Coutts, admitting he was a director and shareholder in 1975 but does not know his present position with that company.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Colchester-Cumberland North (Mr. Coates):
That a public inquiry immediately examine the position and influence of the following persons with reference to receipt of government business by Hydroculture Luwasa Canada Limited, namely, directors of that company, Liberal Party pollster, Martin Goldfarb, his brother, Harvey Goldfarb, Liberal Campaign Chairman, Senator Keith Davey, and, finally, the investigation examine the position of James Coutts and another brother, Stanley Goldfarb, named in today's press by Mr. Coutts as being in charge of a "blind trust" for Mr. Coutts.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43 the presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No!


FISHERIES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under the provisions of the same standing order I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the International Whaling Commission is now meeting in Canberra, Australia, and in view of the fact that the United States, Mexico, France and other countries have given unanimous support for a ten-year moratorium to be
placed on all international whaling activities and in view of Canada's consistent refusal to accept a ban on importing whale products to support conservation activities and its failure to support the ten-year whaling moratorium, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instruct the Canadian delegation at this conference to support the position taken by the United States for a ten-year moratorium on whaling activities and a ban on the importation of whale products.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation for debate of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
Bearing in mind the fact that the federal Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and his counterpart responsible for the Quebec Planning and Development Bureau reached an agreement on June 22 last, on behalf of the two levels of government, which will allow for upgrading many roads in Quebec in an amount of $264,600,000, and that of Highway 117 leading to northwestern Quebec will benefit from that agreement in an amount of $36 million; and the fact that this agreement proves that it is possible for ministers of the two levels of government to cooperate and agree in the best interest of the citizens; and the fact that those agreements are much more useful and profitable to the people than battles with figures and other negative confrontations waged by some other ministers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House encourage the ministers to avoid useless confrontations and sterile fights with figures and work instead on the agreement such as that which was negotiated by Messrs. Lessard and Leonard which agreement will help give Quebecers better roads in coming years.

June 29, 1977
Air Canada


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, the motion cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the announcement by the government of the Province of Alberta that it will not convert its land measurement systems from acres to hectares, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House commend the Government of Alberta for reflecting the views of the majority and request that the minister consider withdrawing those provisions in the metric bill presently before the House providing for such changes in the area of federal jurisdiction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No!


AIR CANADA
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my motion is presented under the terms of Standing Order 43 as well. I wish to lay before the House an incident which may involve the most horrendous example of racial discrimination.
I refer to the treatment of a group of native people by our national airline at the Ottawa airport. On Sunday afternoon, June 26, some 15 native persons returning home to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon from their annual conference in Ottawa were ordered off Air Canada flight No. 179, even though they held confirmed seats and were already placed on the plane. They were told that the computer had no record of their group.
To the best of my belief they were taken off this plane in order to give preferential treatment to other passengers. I am told their subsequent treatment by the people's airline was shameful and also of a discriminatory nature. In light of the foregoing I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):

That this House issue a reference to the Standing Committee on Transportation presently examining certain aspects of Air Canada's operations.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


An hon. Member:: Government by computer!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because I believe that all members of the House support the intent of this motion, I ask leave to present it under Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House notes the increasing concern of all veterans' organizations with respect to the rule under which a veteran's widow receives no widow's pension unless the veteran was in receipt of a disability pension of 48 per cent or more, and this House calls on the government to correct this situation without further delay by providing pro-rata pensions for widows of veterans in cases where the veteran's disability pension was less than 48 per cent, as recommended by the Woods Commission, the Hermann Commission and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity, namely the decision of the CRTC, reported in the Arrow Lakes News, to refuse to renew the licence for the Arrow Lakes Television Society to carry channel 4 Spokane, effective September 30, 1977. In light of the fact that for over 20 years this Society has provided TV service to the residents of the town of Nakusp without a penny of federal funding, in light of the fact that for most of those 20 years there has been no CBC or CTV signal for them to carry, and in light of the fact that, largely due to the efforts of this Society, this government has saved money by no longer having to include Nakusp under the accelerated coverage program, I move,
June 29, 1977

seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That this House instruct the CRTC to immediately withdraw its decision not to license channel 4 Spokane, transmitted by the Arrow Lakes Television Society into the town of Nakusp.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to the Standing Order can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, in his latest bit of electioneering, characteristically made a very important statement outside the House. In view of the fact that the home insulation grants in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are not taxable and have a ceiling of $500 as opposed to a maximum of $350 which is taxable under the program just announced by the minister and his colleague, is the government prepared at the very least to afford the same tax exemption privileges to the other provinces as apply to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and, if not, why not?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have made it very clear to the House that we have received representations from the two provinces of Nova Scotia and P.E.I. respecting their electrical costs and the very heavy increases in costs which can be associated with their dependence on foreign oil for the generation of their electricity. They are in a unique position. There is no other province that comes close to them. I think Nova Scotia has something close to 66 per cent of its electrical energy generated by oil. The next nearest province is down to about one third of its electrical energy from oil or one half of that amount. P.E.I. and Nova Scotia are in a unique position and for that reason we felt they should continue to have those particular benefits unchanged, and that the benefits that we are offering to the rest of Canada should recognize the unique position of those two provinces.


CONSERVATION-GRANTS FOR HOME INSULATION- SUGGESTED DELAY OF PROGRAM TO CONSULT PROVINCES
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. I submit that the disparities in the two programs are
Oral Questions
not justified by the facts. As the minister well knows, it has more to do with politics. Therefore, I should like to ask the minister: in view of the fact that two of the provinces, Alberta and Ontario, have already expressed serious reservations over the program and have been critical over the lack of consultation and infringement of provincial rights, and given the fact of this lack of adequate consultation and unseemly haste in implementation, is the government prepared now to postpone the starting date of this program in order to give the provinces more time for this program in terms of legislation and the necessary budgetary revisions which will be necessary?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, let me try to deal with some of these questions of consultation. It seems to me that this is a very strange claim on the part of the province of Ontario, for example. Prior to the last energy ministers' meeting, which was on May 11,1 circulated to all energy ministers who were to attend that meeting my interest in hearing from them what they were planning to do and what they had done in respect of energy conservation. It was indicated that it was going to be an important agenda item, which it was. Reference was made, in the press interviews following that ministers' conference to a national insulation program. There were a great many questions from your side to the opposition side of the House, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The Speaker's side of the House?


Alastair William Gillespie: -which ensued during the following weeks- were we or were we not going to introduce a national insulation program? At that time I indicated that discussions were going on between ministers on this side of the House. I pointed out that it was a very expensive program, and we wanted to be sure we could afford to offer it to Canadians on a reasonable basis.
Before any announcements were made, 1 entered into substantial discussions with all the energy ministers and their premiers. There were discussions between officials of my office and the various offices of the provincial government. I can understand why the province of Ontario might be a little concerned. They were in the middle of an election at that time, which the hon. member may remember. They put forward a loan program which they said the banks were going to administer. This may be a very useful supplement to our program.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not see it, in any way, as replacing the grants program. It may be a useful supplement in that those who need additional funds may be able to get them. I leave it to the Ontario government to decide whether they are going to go ahead with that. I do not accept their charge that in some way we have stolen their program.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the minister did receive replies and he received alternative proposals which he ignored.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 29, 1977
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to ask the minister: given the fact that the $350 grant will be taxable and conditional and will lean heaviest on the provinces which lacked the capacity to meet the conditions and will lean heaviest on low income earners across the country, will the minister take into account regional disparity in terms of incomes and the capacities of the provinces to meet the conditions of the program in terms of budgetary proposals which they will have to implement? Therefore, is he prepared accordingly to take these conditions into account and to deal with the provinces accordingly?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member examines the program, he will see that we have tried to build in the kind of equity to which he has referred. That is why those grants were made taxable. As the hon. member knows, the recent budget changes of the government of Canada increased the level of person who would not be subjected to income tax in this country. Therefore, they will receive the full grant without any tax whatsoever. On the other hand, the hon. member must recognize that there are some very wealthy Canadians who would be in the 60 per cent tax bracket. It seems to me he should want to support the government's approach, that that type of individual should not receive the same treatment as someone who is not in that taxable bracket.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: We tried to introduce a degree of equity, as far as income groups are concerned. The hon. member referred to unseemly haste. I should like to suggest to him that he has no sense of urgency in respect of the energy problem in this question. During the period I have referred to between May and now, we consulted with the provinces and we have provided a further two months for the provinces to work out with us the details of the program for their citizens.


CONSERVATION-GRANTS FOR HOME INSULATION-AVAILABILITY TO OTHER PROVINCES OF PROGRAM SIMILAR TO THAT OF NOVA SCOTIA AND P.E.I.
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he tell the House why the grants are taxable in eight provinces but not taxable in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island? The minister cited electrical costs as being a factor in the program for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, but in his own statement on Monday he pointed out that 80 per cent of all those housing units are oil heated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the hon. member a supplementary question to ask?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. In view of the differences in this program, as announced on Monday, does the minister not agree with the contention of Premier Schreyer, that the program is restrictive and unequally applied, and will he now make available the same program to

those eight provinces as he has made available in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will read my answer to the first question I was asked today, and the answers I have given him on previous occasions, he will find the answer to his question, again.


CONSERVATION-ALLEGED FAILURE OF NEWFOUNDLAND TO AGREE TO CONDITIONS FOR HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
John Carnell Crosbie: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The eight provinces which have been discriminated against must agree to meeting four conditions with respect to the program. One of those is that they shall adopt a new energy code for new buildings. The minister said in his statement that Newfoundland has agreed to those conditions. Is the minister not aware that the government of Newfoundland has not agreed to those conditions and that, therefore, his statement is misleading and inaccurate? Will he now correct it?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has read the announcement and listened to statements I, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the Minister of State for Science and Technology made-and the last mentioned minister recently published a new insulation code-he would recognize that there is an opportunity for the provinces to provide input into these prescribed conditions, which will only be promulgated after that input by the provinces.
Indeed, other provincial groups may also wish to provide some input. We think this is fully consistent with the time schedule we set out, and fully consistent with the commitment on the part of the provinces to implement either these standards or their equivalent by the end of this year. If the provinces are prepared to make that kind of commitment, that is good enough for us. Because of advice I received and as a result of discussions I have had with the energy minister of Newfoundland, I have been led to believe that Newfoundland would go along with these new standards, on that basis.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour and the acting minister,
I direct my question to the government House leader. It concerns the recent closure of the Vancouver Hotel in Vancouver and the attendant labour dispute. I point out, in connection with the dispute, that the hotel employees sought increases which were well within AIB guidelines, and my question concerns the closure decision. This hotel is owned by Canadian National and operated by the Hilton Hotel chain, and the
June 29, 1977

taxpayers of Canada indirectly spent some S20 million recently renovating that hotel. Can the government House leader say if there was a violation of the agreement between Canadian National and Hilton hotels with regard to the closure of the hotel? That is the first question. Second, have inquiries been made to determine if the Canadian National system participated in any recent decision of Hilton hotels to close that particular hotel? 1 appreciate that the government House leader may have some difficulty answering, and that is why my preamble was so long. He now knows all about it and perhaps can answer now.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why I should be asked to deal with this question, unless I have a responsibility hitherto undisclosed to me.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You look like a bell boy and one always asks the bell boy.


MANPOWER
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I directed my question to the government House leader because both the Minister of Labour and the acting minister have decided to absent themselves from the House. May I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? Notwithstanding that particular dispute in Vancouver, the Department of Manpower has continued to supply workers to the Vancouver Hotel, which is a clear way to assist management in that particular dispute. Would the minister advise whether it is the policy of this government and of the Department of Manpower to supply scabs in industrial disputes to assist one side and not the other?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Department of Manpower maintains a neutral position. When an employer indicates that he needs employees during a strike, we indicate to the individual before he is referred that that particular plant has been struck, and if he chooses not to go to work there unemployment insurance benefits are not cut off. If there were a lockout, is the hon. member suggesting that we would be fair if we said to the individual that we could not place him until the lockout is over? We must be as neutral as we can, and that is what we endeavour to do in these disputes.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
Oral Questions
In answer to a question I asked in the House on June 21 about the CBC purchasing CJBR station in Rimouski, the minister insinuated that some hon. members were opposed to it. After consultation with all these hon. members, except for one representing a riding in the eastern part of the province


An hon. Member:: Who?


Eudore Allard: I have no right to name him but the hon. member knows very well who he is. Could the minister tell the House what prevents him from giving justice to this part of the population in eastern Quebec and northern New Brunswick where this service is overdue?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as I already explained on several occasions to the House, this is a matter which is being actively considered. Of course, advice from hon. members should be considered. There is the question of the credits which would be required considering the fiscal restrictions which are in effect now. I assure the hon. member that we consider this matter carefully and I hope to be soon in a position to answer his question.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
Will the minister take into consideration the representations made by the Chamber of Commerce and all people from eastern Quebec, when a single member opposes this transaction?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, 1 try to keep in mind the representations made by all members, but unfortunately, they are not all coherent. Some may want some kind of action, others may want another kind of action. So I try to consider all opinions expressed, but it is impossible to agree with everybody on that issue.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON FINDINGS OF TASK FORCE CANADA NOT GETTING FAIR SHARE OF BENEFITS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Having regard to the federal government's review of the north American automotive industry, does the minister agree with and support the findings of the automotive task force that Canada is not obtaining its fair share of benefits from the auto pact between Canada and the United States?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I said on several occasions that the auto pact had been very successsful for Canada. We now have a much greater proportion of production in Canada than was the case before. There is still an imbalance between our production and our imports, but 1 agree that we shall take the necessary

June 29, 1977
Ora! Questions
action to try to reduce that imbalance which is favourable to the Americans.


William James Kempling: Noting that the report indicates that Canada has not maintained its proportional share of new employment, new investment or research and development resulting from the over-all expansion of the north American automobile production, can the minister tell the House whether the existing distribution of the benefits of the auto pact trade is acceptable to him and, if not, whether he plans any measures to ensure that Canada obtains a better deal from the auto pact trade?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premises of the hon. member's question because when the auto pact was signed Canada accounted for only 6.7 per cent of the North American production whereas it now accounts for 12.5 per cent of the production and 10 per cent of the consumption, which indicates that in recent years this program was extremely beneficial for Canada. However, there is still a gap and 1 intend to take all the means required to try to fill it.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It has to do with the cold shoulder he has been giving to Premier Schreyer after Premier Schreyer asked the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to hold a first ministers conference in order to deal with unemployment and, in particular, job creation. The Prime Minister indicated that he would look into his files, inasmuch as the second request came when he was at the Commonwealth Conference, in order to see just what occurred. In light of the importance of this matter has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to look into his files, did he leave instructions that this conference, which would be of significant benefit to Canadians, should be convened, and is the Prime Minister prepared to start the ball rolling?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have ascertained that I did answer Premier Schreyer's letter to me. The essence of the federal position is that if our officials and eventually ministers of finance and manpower ministers can meet and make some progress with the kind of idea Premier Schreyer has, we then could usefully consider convening a federal-provincial conference of first ministers. However, at this stage 1 do not think the latter conference should be convened until preliminary work has been done.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the seriousness of this matter and given the fact that we are losing billions of dollars in productivity as well as tax revenue, can the Prime Minister advise whether he has any specific timetable for the first ministers to meet in order to discuss this very serious matter? In other words, we cannot wait forever before the government starts to show some initiative in this regard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the opposition or the premiers to wait forever. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced a program which will be good for Canada from an employment point of view, from an economic point of view and from an energy saving point of view. Of course, the premiers and the opposition were very prompt in criticizing the program. They cannot on the one hand ask us to co-operate with the provinces and then disagree when, after having consulted the provinces, we go ahead with a proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All I want is for the Prime Minister to take it upon himself to convene a first ministers conference as soon as possible-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the statement made earlier this week by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and in light of the reply just given by the Prime Minister I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister assure this House that governing by edict rather than by consultation and co-operation with provincial governments, as evidenced by his announcement of requirements for qualification for home insulation grants-an absolute invasion of provincial jurisdiction-will not continue to be federal policy? Instead, will this government make an attempt to govern adequately matters over which it has a constitutional right?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It is similar to that of the hon. member for Rimouski and follows many others which I have asked in that connection.
June 29, 1977

Since it is the avowed policy of the CBC and the federal government to provide the French-speaking minority outside Quebec with the services urgently needed to make up for time lost, can the Secretary of State assure the House and the French-speaking citizens of New Brunswick that a decision will be taken before August 1, the date on which the CBC must settle once and for all the matter of CJBR station?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot assure the hon. gentleman that the decision will be taken before August 1. I will try my best to have the decision taken before August 1, but 1 cannot guarantee that. However,
I can assure the hon. member that the sentiments which he expressed about the federal government's determination to support Francophone communities outside Quebec as well as inside Quebec are the ones we hold very closely. We are concerned, as I have indicated on several occasions to the House, about ensuring that conditions are established throughout Canada so that Francophone language and culture will not only survive but flourish.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fabour I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Minister of Fabour has received repeated requests over the past few years from Mr. Hodgson, Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, for the authority to enforce the mining safety ordinance. The latest request, to which there had been no reply as of last week, came from Mr. Hodgson on February 15 of this year. This request is fully supported by the local steelworkers union, and I would like to ask the minister if he would inform the House how the government intends to act on this request and when we can expect a reply.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, since those regulations come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fabour, I am not familiar with this matter, but I will bring it to the attention of my colleague as soon as he returns.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the speech made on June 13 to the International Labour Organization by the Minister of Labour setting out a position on paid educational
Oral Questions
leave, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether this is now a policy of the federal government. If so, is it the intention of the government to promote such arrangements through Crown corporations and public service unions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the speech made by the Minister of Labour and referred to by the hon. member in his question. I cannot say that this is government policy, but with the hon. member's indulgence I will check the speech to see exactly what the minister said and to see to what extent he was enunciating a generous idea or an idea which is part of government policy.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Small Business). Last week the United States government announced that it, unlike this government, was unwilling to disorient Americans needlessly by changing miles to kilometres. However, apparently this minister still intends to force this expenditure of millions of dollars, which will have the result of confusing people. Will the minister tell the House whether he has examined the U.S. initiative toward common sense, and will he now amend the act to allow basic measures such as miles and acres to stay as they are?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, we are consulting the United States government to see what its intentions are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: What about Alberta?


Len Marchand: -with respect to miles and kilometres. It is our view that perhaps this announcement really was an announcement of a temporary measure and that it is the intention of the U.S. government in the long term to convert to kilometres. The information I have at this time as a result of further consultations with the provinces is that they have every intention of going ahead with their plans to convert road signs from miles to kilometres.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, not only will this cost Canadians a massive amount in terms of changing road signs and the like, but it will also place one more barrier in front of the U.S. tourist coming into Canada. With a tourist deficit projected to be $10 billion by 1985 will the minister, if he is not ready to end these metrication follies, at least postpone the change to kilometres until he has ascertained that that move will not damage our already shaky tourist industry?

June 29, 1977
Oral Questions
Mir. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the hon. member's question into consideration. However, the Metric Commission has already had considerable consultation with the United States and also, wherever possible, we are letting the American travelling public know of our intention to change from miles to kilometres. It is our view this will not be a deterrent to any American tourists coming to Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of the environment perhaps I could address my question to the acting minister. In reply to a question I put on the order paper, the government disclosed the names of a staggering list of 273 lakes and rivers, including Lakes Erie and Ontario, the St. Lawrence River and Georgian Bay, in which it knows there are fish with abnormally high levels of mercury. May 1 ask the acting minister why the chlor-alkali mercury emission standard regulation has not yet been produced and why the government permitted mercury poisoning of freshwater in all parts of Canada to become so extensive before taking action?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in the reply to his question it was pointed out that a great deal of the mercury registered in these various rivers and lakes was from natural sources as well as industry. 1 might point out also that on April 20 this year the minister announced that regulations to limit the amount of mercury emitted to the atmosphere from chlor-alkali plants had been published and were to take effect some 60 days later. In addition, although the emission limits come into force on July 1, 1978, as 1 said, the regulations provide for the immediate start of reporting on control measures, malfunctions or breakdown and emission measurements so that enforcement actions can be focused on the problem areas. Back in 1972 under the Fisheries Act, action was taken to control chlor-alkali emissions into the waterways and 1 believe that mercury effluents have since been reduced to less than 1 per cent.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am lucky that the parliamentary secretary brought his music today. In view of the fact that the natural flushing of water systems has been shown to be ineffective- Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could have some order from hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF USING HAT CREEK COAL TO REMOVE MERCURY FROM WATER
Henry Perrin Beatty: can understand their uneasiness. If I had their record I would be noisy, too. In view of the fact that natural flushing of water systems has been shown to be ineffective in significantly reducing mercury levels in northwestern Ontario and that the government appears to be unaware of any effective and cost-efficient ways of purifying waters that have been polluted by mercury, may I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the department of the environment has investigated a process described on the CTV national news a couple of nights ago which employs Hat Creek coal as a purifying agent and has been shown in scientific tests at the University of British Columbia to remove at least 99.5 per cent of mercury from water, and if not why not?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not have the pleasure of sharing that program with the hon. member several nights ago. In my first answer to him I pointed out that major legislation was passed several years ago which has been extremely effective in preventing additional mercury going into the waterways.
Just a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked us to be quiet on this side. I am trying to answer his question and wish he would be quiet for a moment. As he well knows, and I believe it was part of the very lengthy and thorough response given to him, mercury has built up as a serious pollution problem in our waterways over many, many years-that is, industrial pollution aside from the natural mercury pollution. 1 will send the press release of a few months ago to the hon. member to give him some further information about mercury pollution in the air.


An hon. Member:: He can't read.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With the noise on the other side the hon. parliamentary secretary apparently did not hear my question. Is the department aware of any cost-efficient and effective method of removing mercury from water systems which have already been polluted with mercury? If it is not, why has it not conducted investigations into the use of Hat Creek coal as a purifying agent to remove mercury and other heavy metals from water systems which have been polluted?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I am not an expert on Hat Creek coal. Had the hon. member given me notice I certainly would have had the facts on hand now. 1 will get the information and send it to him.
June 29, 1977


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce responsible to the Metric Commission. In light of the fact that the government has recently indicated that a subsidy will be made available to assist motor mechanics in changing over to metric tools, will the minister give consideration to broadening this assistance program to help farmers and other individuals who will also be forced to change over as a result of metrication?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Metric Commission and the sector committees have considered this question very carefully and have decided there are only two areas where subsidies would be needed. These were especially high cost areas. One is selfemployed mechanics who have to buy their own tools and the other one is the retail scales conversion. We have no plans at present to increase the number of people who will require subsidy.


William C. Scott: A supplementary question. Will the minister give consideration to the farmers and all those people involved with their own maintenance in this industry? Some of them will have to buy tools as expensive as those for the motor mechanic but the legislation ignores them.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of a recent consumers' report concerning the extensive use and health hazards of asbestos fibres in the preparation of food, beverage and pharmaceutical products in Canada are any steps being taken to prohibit its use?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be more appropriately directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, since the press reported on the meeting between the provincial justice
Oral Questions
ministers and their counterpart at the federal level, would the Solicitor General be in a position to advise whether any proposals have been made concerning the cost of the RCMP services in Quebec and whether representations by the Quebec spokesman were different from those of the former justice minister in the Bourassa administration?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, indeed both Quebec and Ontario justice ministers presented some claims. At first sight, Mr. Speaker, and after listening to the Quebec Minister of Justice, the arguments made in support of his request this year where similar to the ones that have been considered and examined at the time his predecessor, Mr. Choquette, discussed the same issue with my predecessor the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I want to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. By his answer, does the minister mean to say that he categorically refuses to reconsider that problem or that he will take the time to consider those requests more closely to be in a position to inform the House definitely on that matter soon?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the matter was examined closely a few years ago and in fact the Quebec and Ontario governments had seen fit to raise this matter at another level than that of the Solicitor General. They were supposed to do so at the meeting which took place last December between the Minister of Finance of Canada and the provincial ministers. Following their requests, the Minister of Finance gave a clear answer.
As regards the Department of the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker, of course we are in a position to offer police services to the provinces and in return, they give money to us. However, we cannot give subsidies to the provinces.


CONSERVATION-GRANTS FOR HOME INSULATION-REASON FOR DIFFERENTIATION IN TREATMENT OF PROVINCES
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those put by my colleagues, the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for St. John's West, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the minister agree that under our federal constitution, such matters as building codes, direct sales taxes, the production of electricity and the manner in which it is sold and metered within a province, not to mention the question of speed limits on the highways, are matters solely and wholly within provincial jurisdiction? Will he also agree that property assessment, utility rate structures, landlord and tenant relationships are also within provincial jurisdiction? That being so, how can he justify the treatment of residents of eight provinces whereby they are singled out for special consideration and heavy taxation while the residents of the other two provinces

June 29, 1977
Oral Questions
are not? Does it have something to do with the complexion of the governments of the other two provinces, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia?


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, that seems to be precisely the question put by the hon. member for St. John's East at the beginning of the question period.


Donald W. Munro: But we didn't get an answer.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 1 would like to direct to the Prime Minister. It arises from a document issued by his office following the recent London Commonwealth Conference at which he gave a press conference. It concerns what he referred to as one party democracy at certain times being a good form of democracy and that such a thing might be argued for Canada some day. Will the Prime Minister explain to this House whether it is government policy to lead this country in such a direction? Will he give us the full meaning of what appears to be a rather undemocratic and somewhat demagogic remark in London?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if this country ever turned to a one party government, it would be because of members on the other side like the hon. member for Leeds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard the Prime Minister's reply in its entirety because of the noise on the other side. However, I must say his words are very clear in his press release. I would therefore like to ask him another question. Did his statement which he made at the Commonwealth Conference in London represent any undisclosed policy or any policy that is presently under consideration but not yet in effect to downgrade parliament and move us further toward government by the Prime Minister's office?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member must be referring not to a press release but probably a transcript of a press conference I gave when I was in London. It was in answer to a question from some member of the media asking me if we should not exclude from the Commonwealth governments which were governed by one party democracies. 1 went to some length to indicate that the overwhelming majority of participants in the Commonwealth were not of the parliamentary democracy type but had one-party states and that if we were to exclude all of them, we would be in some difficulty. We would certainly end up with an all white Commonwealth, which is not my idea of a Commonwealth.

Based on that, as the hon. member will see if he takes the trouble to read the answer in its entirety, I said it was up to each country to give itself the kind of government it wanted and that for some countries the one party democracy, one party state, was a legitimate form of government.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: As it is pertinent to my final supplementary, may I quote the exact sentence. "I would not be prepared to think that I would be successful in arguing that", that is a one party democracy, "for Canada at the present time but such time might come, who knows?" Will the Prime Minister explain that statement to the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the members of the media who were there will testify, I said that with a bit of irony and with a smile. My feeling was that it is really the opposition that is making that conclusion inevitable, not my own policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In his absence, may I pose it to the Acting Minister of Transport. I refer to a letter that I wrote the minister on June 23 condemning the actions of Canadian National Railways on Cape Breton Island in their continuing policy of cutbacks and layoffs on Cape Breton Island, adding to an already unbearable unemployment rate. I realize that the minister has not had time to reply as yet. However, in view of the fact it has come to my attention that further cutbacks are to take place today in the taking off of the back-shift shunter out of Sydney, thus eliminating another five jobs, and it is also the intention of CN to take off what is known as the Sydney shunter which deals with local industries, removing the jobs of the yardmas-ter, an engineer and two trainmen, another four jobs, will the acting minister contact officials of the CN Atlantic region immediately to ascertain just what is going on?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice for the acting minister and be sure that the hon. member receives an answer.


Robert Muir: I thank my colleague from Cape Breton for taking an interest in the question which the acting minister did not seem to know about. At the same time, will he ascertain from CN if it is their intention to remove the major portion of their present office located at North Sydney to Halifax, thus removing more jobs from Cape Breton Island?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will take that as notice and consult with the hon. member for Halifax.
June 29, 1977


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. A few weeks ago, 1 asked him a question concerning the advisory committee studying the report of the committee on penitentiaries including, of course, the RCMP, the National Parole Board and the Canadian Penitentiary Service. Would the minister now tell the House if he got that report from the advisory group? If so, could he tell if in the short term, in the medium term or the long term, some of those recommendations could be implemented? If not, when does he intend to make a statement in the House?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, indeed I got preliminary reports that I am now studying and discussing with officials of my department. The hon. member will also see that in Bill C-51 now before the House, I proposed several amendments taking into account some recommendations of the committee which studied the penitentiary system. Unfortunately, some of those amendments have been, and rightly so, declared out of order by the chairman of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of the House. However, 1 intend to present again in the House at the third reading stage one of these recommendations that would propose the almost immediate implementation of one of the recommendations considered as essential by the members of the committee, namely granting certain powers to the Solicitor General allowing him to appoint independent chairmen to the internal disciplinary courts of the penitentiaries.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the increasing concern of veterans and their organizations over the number of widows who do not receive pensions, and in view of the increasing concern over the widening gap between the rate of the disability pension and the base to which it was attached a few years ago, as well as the minister's sympathetic statements made several times to the effect that this matter is being reviewed, will he do his best to get the members of the cabinet to agree to bringing in this year the necessary legislation to correct these two situations?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, this is a concern of mine and many people in the House. As far as trying to get it implemented this year, I will do my best.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Solicitor General concerning a public servant, Ian Keith Carruthers, who found his name on the extraparliamentary opposition list. 1 am sure the present Solicitor General knows about this. There has been a report from the press that his name is there by accident, that when the name Carruthers was used, it referred to another Carruthers. With this in mind, has the Solicitor General conducted an investigation with respect to the matter because the name of Ian Keith Carruthers is very important to himself and I hope his good name is also important to the government.


Francis Fox: As far as we are
concerned on this side of the House there never has been drawn up the type of list the hon. member refers to, the so-called enemies list, so there is no action to be taken in that regard.


Walter David Baker: That is very interesting. If it never occurred, then it suddenly appeared in the press. Hon. members know full well that it did not come from this side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Walter David Baker: The public servant in question was, and I guess he still is, a valued employee of the Ministry of Urban Affairs and an officer with CMHC. 1 assume they would be very interested in his good name. Given the fact that his name has appeared in the press and that his reputation might have been affected thereby, has the Solicitor General received any representations from his colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with respect to his employee or from the President of CMHC, and if he has not, would he take it upon himself personally to inquire into this state of affairs and at least make a statement with respect to the matter in the House of Commons and use his good offices to establish a tribunal before which this public servant could clear his name, a name which is valuable to him and which, 1 hope, is just as important to the Solicitor General and his colleagues?


Francis Fox: If the hon. member is referring to a civil servant who feels his name has been slandered or libelled and if that has come about because his name has been published in a newspaper, I can only suggest to the hon. member that his proper recourse is to sue the newspaper which apparently published his name and accused him of being on some sort of list, or black list, which would have originated with the government.


Walter David Baker: The public servant in question has sued the Minister of Supply and Services and the Solicitor General in an effort to clear his name. He has indicated he is not interested in monetary damages but in

June 29, 1977
Committees of the House
clearing his name. In order to avoid the tremendous legal costs attached to an action such as this with respect to a matter which could be cleared up within the resources of the government, would the Solicitor General consider the unfairness of his answer and use his good offices either to make public the information in his possession which would indicate that Car-ruthers is clean or, on the other hand, to recommend the establishment of a tribunal where evidence could be placed and could be confronted, and Carruthers could be given an opportunity to clear his name in an expeditious and effective manner?


Francis Fox: I am, of course, delighted to hear that members on the other side believe that names ought not to be bandied around loosely either in parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: -or by the media.


Walter David Baker: What about clearing it?


An hon. Member:: Disgraceful!


Francis Fox: If the hon. member is referring to a civil servant who feels his reputation has been slandered by his name being bandied in the media, I suggest once again that his name has not been sullied by this government or by any previous solicitor general and that his recourse lies against those who have bandied his name about. As far as we are concerned we have nothing to do with that man's name being brought out in the press.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments-Mr. McCleave.

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies, in both official languages, of correspondence between myself and the chairman of the CRTC concerning the delay in the report of the committee of inquiry regarding the CBC.


FINANCE
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report of the commodity tax review group.


INFORMATION
John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2), I am tabling, in both official languages, a green paper on legislation concerning public access to government documents.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I, on a point of order, ask the government House leader what is to be the business for the balance of the day and for the rest of the week? Perhaps he would tell us, also, the government's plans for next week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We shall call the report stage of the Auditor General's bill today and, hopefully, the House will agree to proceed to third reading. Afterwards we would turn to third reading of the Canada Pension Plan amendment. Following that, 1 should like to call the amendments to the Criminal Code-


Mr. Woolliams:: What a dream.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and third reading of the unemployment insurance bill.


An hon. Member:: We shall be here until August.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. gentleman knows, there is a resolution on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister. This will be called on Tuesday and it will provide an occasion upon which to debate the question of national unity.
June 29, 1977


Walter David Baker: That particular motion, 1 believe, is being called on the understanding that one of the allotted days of the opposition has been granted to it. 1 wish the hon. gentleman would confirm that this is the case, because he did not do so in his original statement. Would the government House leader consider granting additional government time for the debate which is to take place on Tuesday and Wednesday? We have no time left to grant, but perhaps the minister might consider granting more government time to the discussion of this motion, because of its importance. I think it is reasonable that members should be given an opportunity to put their views on record, since the question of confederation and national unity is one which affects every member representing all the people of Canada. Would the government House leader consider the possibility of allotting several government days to this motion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 have, but as the hon. member knows, there is a real scarcity of available days for business between now and the adjournment. 1 fully acknowledge that one of the days set aside for the debate on national unity is a donation from the opposition, for which we are most grateful. We have added another day, so we shall have a two-day debate as a minimum. However, if there were favourable developments with respect to the legislative program, it might be possible to add another day. But we can consider this prospect as we get into the debate. It might be useful to consider restricting the length of speeches to, say, 20 minutes-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -with the exception of leaders of parties, who may wish to speak for a bit longer. Then there is the possibility of reinstating extended hours, which will expire tomorrow.


Mr. Paproski:: Not after all we have done for you.


Walter David Baker: I think it would be inappropriate, the government having wasted the extended hours, to extend them again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I must say that the prospect of 20-minute speeches does not overcome me, and I would be prepared to talk to the hon. gentleman about that aspect. But I also want to say there is no scarcity whatever of House time. There is no fixed date by which the House has to adjourn, and we are prepared to deal with the legislation the government wishes to bring forward.
One other matter which is important from the point of view of our business later in the year is the undertaking that has been given by the government to provide, before a decision is taken respecting a pipeline, an opportunity for the House of Commons to consider the matter in the terms set forth in the House by the government House leader and by the Prime
Business of the House
Minister in the media. Has the government any idea when all the reports will be down? 1 understand there will be one down by the first of the week, or perhaps at the end of this week. There is one more to come, 1 think the Lysyk report. When is it expected, and when does the government expect to be calling back the House to debate the matter? What form will the debate take, and has the government any contemplation as to when the debate will take place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the debate on the reports relating to the pipeline, as the hon. member has indicated we expect the report of the National Energy Board next week, and it may be possible to debate that report next week or the following week, if we are here. It is then our expectation that the two remaining relevant reports, namely Dean Lysyk's report and the second volume of Mr. Justice Berger's report, will be available on August 1. In keeping with the commitment which has been made by the government to give members of the House an opportunity to comment and to give their views on these reports before a decision is made, it is the intention of the government to recall the House, if it is not in session, the first week of August. The dates I have been considering are August 4 and 5, which would give us an opportunity to debate the reports which, hopefully, will be available on August 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, with regard to the length of speeches, hours of sitting and what we do during the summer, 1 think that could best be discussed first of all at a meeting of the House leaders, and we are prepared to take part in such a meeting, or in such meetings, if necessary. However, I should like the government House leader to make clear what we will do on Monday. He has told us that we will be considering Bill C-20, Bill C-49, Bill C-51 and Bill C-27, in that order. If by the end of tomorrow we have not finished Bill C-51, on Monday will we be staying with Bill C-51, or switching over to Bill C-27? It would be useful for the House to know what we will be doing when we come back on Monday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it would be my intention to call the unemployment insurance bill on Monday regardless of the progress which has been made on the other bills. In the unlikely event that the criminal law amendments have not cleared on Thursday, it would not be my intention to call them again on Monday. I would make one further comment. In light of the fact that it is expected that the House will be recalled, for reasons with which we are familiar, early in August, it would be my wish to try to conclude this part of the session as quickly as possible. I am sure that the hon. member did not see the faces behind him when he made the comment he did.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Look behind you at your own members, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I refer to his challenge to sit all of July. In order to relieve the anxiety which I detected, I would be willing to enter into negotiations with a view to concluding

June 29, 1977
Business of the House
within a reasonable time so that members will have some time in their constituencies before returning in August.


Walter David Baker: That is fine, Mr. Speaker. I have noted my hon. friend's remarks and I, too, observed the faces across the House. In his remarks concerning the debate on the inquiry, the minister injected a new element, according to my recollection, and that is that the debate on the pipeline inquiry might be conducted in a series. In other words, there might be one now on the National Energy Board report and one later on the Lysyk report and the second volume of the Berger report. That is something new; it has not been dealt with before.
Does the House leader intend to deal with this matter in a series of debates? If that is the government's intention, would the government not reconsider? It seems to me-1 say this with respect-that until all the reports are in it would not be fruitful for the House to consider the matter. The purpose of the debate is to consider all the evidence.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, certainly one debate is mandatory in light of the commitment that has been made. 1 have always had in mind that it would be possible, when the National Energy Board reported, to call the motion on the pipeline which is on the order paper, and this would give the House an opportunity to discuss it for a day. If that were done, it would not relieve the necessity of having a final debate in August. On that first point I am rather relaxed; it might be desirable to have a debate on the National Energy Board report, or it might not. We could consider that after we receive the report. My own view is that it might be useful to have the views at that time, but I would withhold my final judgment.


Mr. Clark:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the government is suggesting that it has extra government time to have an extra debate before the adjournment of the House, an extra two-day debate on the pipeline, I hope the government might reconsider the government House leader's suggestion that there is not enough time to extend the debate on national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If we have the time, before adjourning, to begin a debate seriatim on the pipeline, surely we have time in the House on government days to take more than eight hours' debating time to discuss the urgent problem of national unity which is facing this country.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I raised a question of privilege on which Your Honour reserved your decision. I was just wondering when that decision might be rendered by the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The only question of privilege I can recall the hon. member raising was concerning the actions of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson).


Robert Carman Coates: I refer to the festivities here on Parliament Hill on July 1, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can perhaps give the matter further consideration and give the House an accurate description of the way I see my responsibilities. I attempted, however, to describe to the hon. member and to the House in a preliminary way the way I saw my responsibilities in this regard; that is to say, that I did not see it as the responsibility of the Chair to be able to intervene in the individual and specific agenda of every event which takes place in these buildings; but, rather, I would attempt to persuade all those who hold events inside and outside these buildings-and there is some difference in jurisdiction-that the best motivations ought to be used in the true parliamentary sense. In that regard, 1 indicated to the House that 1 would express that sentiment to the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), which I have done. However, I will attempt to formulate more precise language as to whether or not an exact question of privilege is involved.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that no action has been taken, to my knowledge, since I raised my question of privilege, to alter the events as they have been planned and indicated to the government, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should remind the hon. member we are in routine proceedings and we are not able, at this time, to receive that motion. However, we will be on motions shortly.


Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While there is some discussion in the House with respect to our plans for House business, I wonder if I could raise with hon. members a point which I mentioned last week regarding private members' business this week. As events have unfolded, the only time available for private members' business this week would be Thursday afternoon between the hours of five and six. In the normal course of events, that time would be designated for the "B" schedule of private members' business, namely, the calling of private bills, notices of motions for papers, and public bills.
As I indicated last week, discussions have taken place and I think there is agreement to proceed with a series of bills standing in the name of various hon. members, instead of the normal course of business within that hour. These bills effect certain changes in the names of constituencies. For the information of hon. members, the bills are as follows: C-283, C-392, C-393, C-394, C-405, C-406, C-418, C-422, C-427, C-428 and C-429. There are 11 of them in total. There has been agreement to call those items in order beginning at five o'clock on Thursday, and to proceed with them through all stages without debate in order to accommodate the changes which members deem to be desirable. In the remaining time left to us in that hour on Thursday, there is agreement to take the report stage of Bill C-256.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that sounds agreeable, subject to one question. Does that list exclude the
June 29, 1977

bill in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman)?


Ralph Goodale: That is correct.


Walter David Baker: Then that is agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has confirmed the arrangement made last week, but part of that arrangement was that we gave time last week to private bills such as Bell Canada. Having given Bell Canada an hour last week, it was understood that that was in exchange for any time this week. The arrangements for tomorrow deal with public bills regarding constituencies, and the other bill named by the parliamentary secretary. Then if there is any time left, it should be on notices of motions for papers, and not private bills.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. 1 would hold open the possibility that in the following week we might direct our attention to a particular notice of motion for papers No. 15 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Mei-ville (Mr. Nystrom).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House will move to the consideration of private members' business tomorrow at five o'clock, in the order described by the hon. parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed, and so ordered.


DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Last week, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) was in his place at the time of introduction of bills, but momentarily the proposed seconder of this private bill had slept-stepped out of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: That is the first time the word "slept" has ever been used in Hansard as a combination between "slipped" and "stepped". In any case, the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin) had stepped out of the House momentarily and I volunteered the services of another hon. member to be the seconder of the bill, as I sometimes do. In view of the specific nature of the bill, it seems to me the matter should be stood over, as I indicated at that time, until both members were present in the House.
In consequence of having given the bill the usual formal introduction, the bill was printed and distributed as if it had been read the first time. I did not interfere with that process because I was quite confident the two hon. members would be
House of Commons
present in the House today and the matter could be corrected in that way. Therefore, I see the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), seconded by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin), moving for leave to introduce a bill intituled "An act to amend the Divorce Act (living separate and apart)". The bill has already been explained by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-430, to amend the Divorce Act (living separate and apart).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETROLEUM CORPORATIONS MONITORING ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill S-4, to require the reporting of certain financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of designated petroleum companies carrying on business in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION TO ADJOURN
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), that this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.

June 29, 1977
House of Commons
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The Elouse divided on the motion (Mr. Coates) which was. negatived on the following division:
Roy (Laval) Sauve (Mrs.) Sharp Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Messrs.
Stanbury
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Stollery
Tessier
Trudeau Turner Watson Yanakis Young-112.
(Division No. 68)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Alexander	Jelinek	MunroAlkenbrack	Johnston	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Baker	Jones	Murta(Grenville-Carleton)	Kempling	NeilBaldwin	Knowles	NowlanBeatty	(Winnipeg	OberleBrisco	North Centre)	O'SullivanClark	Knowles	Paproski(Rocky Mountain)	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	PattersonClarke	Korchinski	Peters(Vancouver Quadra)	Lambert	Pigott (Mrs.)Coates	(Edmonton West)	ReynoldsCossitt	La Salle	RitchieCrosbie	Lawrence	RocheCrouse	Leggatt	RynardDarling	MacDonald	SaltsmanEllis	(Egmont)	SchellenbergerEpp	MacDonald (Miss)	ScottFirth	(Kingston and the	StanfieldForrestall	Islands)	StevensFraser	Mazankowski	SymesFriesen	McCain	TowersGillies	McCleave	WhitewayGrafftey	McGrath	WhittakerHnatyshyn	McKinnon	WiseHolmes Jarvis	Mitges Muir
NAYS Messrs.	Woolliams-69.Abbott	Demers	LanielAllmand	Dionne	LapointeAnderson	(Northumberland-	LavoieAndras	Miramichi)	Leblanc(Port Arthur)	Douglas	(Laurier)Andres	(Bruce-Grey)	Lee(Lincoln)	Drury	LefebvreAppolloni (Mrs.)	Duclos	LoiselleBaker	Dupras	(Chambly)(Gander-T willingate)	Duquet	LoiselleBeaudoin	Ethier	(Saint-Henri)Bechard	Faulkner	LumleyBegin (Miss)	Fleming	MacDonaldBlais	Flynn	(Cardigan)Blaker	Foster	MacdonaldBlouin	Fox	(Rosedale)Boulanger	Gauthier	MacEachenBreau	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MacGuiganBuchanan	Gendron	MarceauBussieres	Gillespie	MarchandCaccia	Goodale	MartinCafik	Goyer	McRaeCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Gray	MilneCampbell	Guay	Nicholson (Miss)(LaSalle-fsmard-Cote	(St. Boniface)	O'ConnellSaint-Paul)	Guilbault	ParentCaron	Haidasz	PearsallChretien	Harquail	PelletierClermont	Herbert	PinardComtois	Holt (Mrs.)	PortelanceCondon	Hopkins	PoulinCorbin	Horner	Prud'hommeCullen	Kaplan	RailtonCyr	Lachance	RainesDanson	Lajoie	ReidDaudlin	Lamontagne	RobertsDawson	Landers	RobinsonDe Bane	Langlois	Rooney


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 577, 886, 1,797, 2,080, 2,241, 2,284, 2,330, 2,345, 2,385, 2,436, 2,444, 2,445 and 2,466.

1976 CENSUS


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the total expenditure for the 1976 Census?
2.	(a) How many persons were employed to canvas door-to-door in order to issue the Census forms (b) what was the cost of hiring them (c) what was or is the length of their employment (d) on what date does it terminate?
3.	What was the (a) purpose of including pencils with each Census form (b) cost, apart from the total Census cost, of supplying the pencils?
4.	(a) For what reason was June 1, 1976 designated "Census Day" (b) what was the cost of advertising in the media that June 1, 1976 would be "Census Day"?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. The cost of collecting the 1976 Census is estimated at $28,500,000. Much of this expenditure is for wages paid to the 33,000 employees hired to collect census information from householders across Canada. The processing and the subsequent dissemination of the mass of information (over 300 million facts) into easily understood and accessible statistics through publications, microfilms and computer tapes; together with research and evaluation of the results to provide basic information to improve future censuses will cost an estimated $32,500,000 spread over a period of 4 years. Planning the census, which included field testing new methods, designing and printing of questionnaires and a vast amount of preparation work cost approximately $20,000,000 spread over a period of five years. Part of this cost was for salaries and the purchase of equipment and supplies from within Canada. The total estimated cost of $81,000,000 spread over a period of nine years represents approximately 40 cents per Canadian each year.
2.	(a) Approximately 30,000. (b) The total remuneration of the approximately 30,000 census representatives was approximately $11,000,000 including remuneration received during training, (c) and (d) census representatives were recruited in April and started their training (seven half-days) in May. The majority of census representatives completed their assignment by the third week of June.
June 29, 1977

3.	(a) It is necessary to use a soft lead pencil to complete the Census questionnaire. The Census questionnaire is processed by machine which does not readily read responses coded in ink. Manual processing by Statistics Canada of responses coded in ink is a very expensive operation-given the potential volume involved, (b) Pencils were distributed to approximately 7,200,000 households. Cost of the pencils was $198,000.00 (about 2.5 cents each).
4.	(a) Historically, June 1 has been the Census Day for several decades. There is some importance, from the point of view of the comparability of data from one Census to another, to preserve this date. Moreover, it is a convenient date for the following reasons: (1) for agriculture questions, areas sown to the more important crops can be determined more easily; (2) the weather is generally temperate and suitable for the enumeration; (3) children are usually in school unitil the end of June and the population movement to summer resorts has not started, (b) The total cost of publicity for the 1976 Census of Canada in the media is estimated to be $1.2 million. The program was developed to make Canadians aware that June 1, 1976, was Census Day, informing them of the procedures involved in filling in the questionnaires and returning them in the appropriate manner. Experience during the 1971 Census demonstrated that such an information campaign reduces the necessity for costly follow-up by improving the quality of the responses and the speed of return of the questionnaires.


Mr. MacKay: t. What was the total cost of the (a) 1941 (b) 1946 (c) 1951 (d) 1956 (e) 1961 (f) 1966 (g) 1971 Census?
2.	What is the estimated total cost of the 1976 Census?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada replies: 1. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) Total costs for censuses, including planning, implementation and publication can not be meaningfully compiled from existing records for the years prior to 1971. The costs supplied below refer to the census cost incurred as defined and published in the Administrative Reports for the respective censuses. Since the nature and complexity of each census differs markedly, these cost figures must be used with caution in drawing comparisons. Information prior to 1951 is not available. 1951, $8,292,000; 1956, $4,343,000; 1961, $17,530,000; 1966, $10,647,000; 1971, $40,865,000.
2.	It is estimated that census costs during 1976 will be $36,500,000. The estimated total cost of the 1976 census is $81,000,000. This figure includes expenditures during the fiscal years 1972/73 to 1978/79 inclusive.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	In 1976, which were the ten countries whose diplomats most often invoked diplomatic immunity to avoid being prosecuted for violations of Canadian law and in how many instances was diplomatic immunity invoked by each of the ten?
Order Paper Questions
2.	In each case, how many people are permitted to claim diplomatic immunity for each country?
3.	In 1976, which countries did not invoke diplomatic immunity for diplomats who were in violation of Canadian law?
4.	In each case, what was the nature of the offences which these diplomats were alleged to have committed?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. In 1976, members of diplomatic missions belonging to the ten following countries have invoked diplomatic immunity, as indicated, in most cases for parking violations. USSR, 344; Nigeria, 267; Senegal, 241; Ivory Coast, 232; Gabon, 214; Zaire, 153; Egypt, 148; Algeria, 143; France, 141; Tunisia, 132.
2.	A person who is qualified in accordance with the Vienna Convention to be a bearer of a diplomatic identity card enjoys diplomatic immunities; members of the technical and administrative staff of diplomatic missions may only invoke immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction for acts performed within the course of the exercise of their official duty.
3.	Diplomatic immunity is not invoked when a diplomat finds himself in violation of Canadian law and chooses to pay a fine. Such cases would not be known to the government. A certain number of diplomatic missions appear not to invoke diplomatic immunity with regard to minor offences such as parking violations.
4.	For the most part the offences were parking violations, other offences were largely minor traffic offences with a very small number of other offences such as disorderly conduct and shoplifting.


Mr. Howie: 1.	As of January 1 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the number of maximum security prisons and what was the (i) total number of inmates (ii) total number of inmates in each case?
2.	What is the projected total number of inmates in maximum security prisons for January 1 (a) 1978 (b) 1980 (c) 1985?
3.	What new maximum security prisons are presently being built, or are scheduled to be built and what is the projected (a) date of completion (b) cost (c) number of inmates to be housed in each?
4.	What maximum security prisons are presently being phased out of operation, or are scheduled to be phased out of operation, and what (a) is the scheduled date of termination (b) will be the decrease in inmate population on a yearly basis from the beginning to the completion of the phasing out of each?


Francis Fox: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General: (Canadian Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service) 1. (a) 12; (b) 12; (c) 11; (i and ii) See list below.
2.	(a) 3,702; (b) 3,379; (c) 3,300.

June 29, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3.	New maximum security institutions presently being built or scheduled to be built, including regional reception and psychiatric centres:
(a)	Fore- cast completion	(b) Cost (c)	CapacityAtlantic Region Maximum Institution No. 1	June, 1979	$11,700,000	216Regional Psychiatric Centre	March, 1981	$ 8,700,000	60Maximum Institution No. 2	August, 1985	$13,500,000	216Quebec Region	Maximum Institution No. 1	June, 1979	$1 1,700,000	216Maximum Institution No. 2	April, 1979	$11,700,000	216Maximum Institution No. 3	March, 1983	$16,500,000	216Maximum Institution No. 4	March, 1983	$16,500,000	216Ontario Region	Regional Psychiatric Centre	June, 1979	$ 9,500,000	170Regional Reception Centre	March, 1982	$13,500,000	180Maximum Institution No. 1	March, 1982	$13,500,000	350Prairie Region	Regional Psychiatric Centre	March, 1978	$ 8,730,000	100Maximum Institution No. 1	March, 1979	$11,865,000	216Maximum Institution No. 2	March, 1982	$11,500,000	216Pacific Region	Maximum Institution No. 1	October, 1978	$13,340,000	192Regional Reception Centre	March, 1981	$13,500,000	120Maximum Institution No. 2	March, 1981	$13,500,000	2164.	Maximum institutions presently being phased out, (a) Scheduled date of termination; Dorchester Penitentiary March 1986; Laval Maximum Institution March 1983; Kingston Penitentiary September 1981; British Columbia Penitentiary March 1981. (b) It is impossible to forecast what the decrease in inmate population will be in maximum security institutions on a yearly basis. However, set out below is the number of cells to be closed during the phasing out period:Institution	No. of cells to be closed	YearDorchester Penitentiary	150	1980150	1981213	1986Laval Maximum Institution	200	1981200	1982183	1983Kingston Penitentiary	All cells	1981British Columbia Penitentiary	All cells	1981. Fox.)	
Total No. of Inmates as of
Institution	1975	January 1 1976	1977Dorchester Penitentiary	370	323	357Regional Reception Centre (Quebec)	173	198	301Regional Psychiatric Centre (Quebec)	67	112	*	Correctional Development Centre (Quebec)	67Laval Institution	166	268	355Archambault Institution	400	416	416Regional Reception Centre (Ontario)	216	281	278Regional Psychiatric Centre (Ontario)	121	108	98Millhaven Institution	300	229	335Stony Mountain Institution	443	460	466Saskatchewan Penitentiary	524	511	534Regional Psychiatric Centre (Pacific)	118	89	92British Columbia Penitentiary	517	**473	**3653,415	3,468	3,664
* Figure for the Regional Psychiatric Centre (Quebec) is included with Laval Institution.
** Figures include Regional Reception Centre.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What has been the cost, to date, of the feasibility study for the new National Gallery?
2.	What is the estimated total cost of the study?
3.	To whom has the principal amount been paid?
4.	What is the (a) description of the site on which the construction is projected (b) total area of the site?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. The limited architectural competitions and the related expenditures undertaken on the National Gallery cannot be classified as feasibility studies. Planning studies have been performed on the Wellington West planning precinct jointly between Public Works and the National Capital Commission. However, these were undertaken prior to the decision to locate the National Gallery on the presently proposed site and at the time were not directly concerned with the National Gallery. Studies connected with the suitability of the site for the National Gallery were done within Public Works and the National Capital Commission, and therefore no significant costs were incurred.
2. The cost breakdown for the limited architectural competition and related expenditures are as follows:
June 29, 1977

Competitors' prizes Competitors' Travel expenses	$350,000.00 8,810.26	$358,810.26Professional Advisor fees Professional Advisor expenses	$26,531.83 2,632.73	$29,164.56Program Consultant fees Program Consultant expenses	$200,685.70 4,641.09	$205,326.79Miscellaneous Consultants' fees and expenses (including Jury)	$47,348.84	$47,348.84Miscellaneous expenditures	$33,258.72	$33,258.72Total Expenditures to date:	$673,909.173.	Each competing firm and consortium, including the winner, was paid $35,000.4.	(a) The site is bounded by Wellington Street on the south side, the National Library and Public Archives on the west, the Ottawa River on the north and the Supreme Court and proposed Federal Court on the east, (b) 12.5 acres.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Under the H-PEVAIC Programme and according to code D-28, did persons drawing unemployment insurance lose their right to benefits under section 40(1 )(d) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, for having failed to attend an interview pursuant to section 107 and, if so, how many (a) in Quebec, from April 1 to June 30, 1976 (b) in each region of Canada over the same period (c) in each region of Canada, during the implementation of the section involved?
2.	Did the persons drawing unemployment insurance thereby excluded regain their right and were they reimbursed and, if not, for what reason?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Statistics on the H-PEVAIC program were not separately kept for this period.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, how many federal employees were charged with policy-making or the interpretation of policies, relating to employment standards and occupational safety?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: As of December 31, (a) 1968, 8; (b) 1976, 14.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	How many CBC (a) TV reporters (b) radio reporters (c) cameramen (d) soundmen (e) other technicians covered the spring training camp of the Toronto Bluejays and, in each case, how long were they on this assignment?
2.	(a) How many pieces of material were submitted by the reporters for (i) radio (ii) television (b) how many of the reports were aired (c) how many minutes of air time did this involve?
3.	How many CBC (a) reporters (radio and television) (b) cameramen (c) soundmen (d) other technicians cover each of the provincial legislatures while they are in session?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. English Services: (a) Four sports commentators; (b) one sports commentator; (c) three staff, one freelance; (d) one; (e) one. One producer, one unit manager, one director, one production assistant and one script assistant were also assigned. The above staff were assigned as follows: TV-A crew of eight spent three weeks, a unit manager spent four days and a commentator spent five days preparing a one-hour special (fully paid for by its sponsor). One commentator and one cameraman spent March 6-14 producing items daily for two Toronto local sportscasts plus longer items for Toronto local evening news shows. All items were syndicated to CBC stations across Canada. One commentator and one cameraman spent March 25-April 3 producing a half-hour Toronto local special plus items for two daily Toronto local sports shows. Items were syndicated. A director spent one day directing an item for 90 Minutes Live, a national program, using the sports camera crew already on location. One commentator spent three days covering the camp for network news, network weekend sports shows and Toronto local station. Radio-Staff member from national sports desk of national newsroom spent two days providing items for national newscasts, plus a 15-minute item for network sports program Rebound. French Services: (a), (b) one (c) two (d) one (e) nil. One producer and one script assistant were also assigned. The French Services television crew was in Florida to cover the Montreal Expos training camp. At the end of that assignment the crew spent one day at the Blue Jays camp preparing three network television items.
2.
(a)	(0	English Services 7	French Services 8(ii)	32	3(b)	(i)	7	8(ii)	32	3(c)	(i)	27 minutes	13 minutes(ii)	140 minutes	10 minutes approximately*
* The Blue Jays were mentioned at the end of the radio reports on the Expos and no exact count is available.

June 29, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3.	Reporters	Cameramen	Soundmen	OthersEnglish	FrenchEnglish	J. French	English	French English	FrenchNewfoundland Prince Edward	1(A)	- 1 +	-	*Island	KB)	- 1	-	-Nova Scotia	2	- 1	-	4	-New Brunswick	2	1 -(C)	- 1	-	1	1Quebec	2	7 1(D)	1 1	-	1	-Ontario	3	1 1	- KE)	-	-Manitoba	2	1 1	-	-Saskatchewan	1	1 -	-	-Alberta	2	1 1	- 1(F)	-	2	-British Columbia	2(G)	1 (H) 1(1)	-	2	-
Notes:
J-Joint English/French
H-Camera units usually incorporate sound and are operated by one person
*-All crews are augmented for special occasions, including opening of the legislatures and Speech from the Throne
(a)	-Plus one news editor assigned on a daily basis
(b)	-Plus one part-time reporter
(c)	-one freelance cameraman as required
(d)	-Freelance cameraman
(e)	-Occasional (0-Occasional
(g)	-Plus one part-time reporter
(h)	-Freelance reporter
(i)	-Plus one part-time film cameraman	____________


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Following an inquiry by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Quebec, which revealed that more than 40 per cent of the claimants did not attend H-PEVAIC interviews when they were summoned in writing as compared to those summoned orally, did the Department of Manpower and Immigration decide to summon candidates in writing despite the study and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Did the decision of the Department take into account (a) the intelligibility of the UIC forms (b) the fact that, according to the Centrale des enseignants du Quebec (Quebec Teachers' Union), 40 per cent of the adults of the Province have only an elementary level education and thus the most deprived are the ones who are victims of exclusions and, if so, has such a procedure been adopted across the country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. No. The Department is of the opinion that summoning claimants in writing is better business practice than giving them appointments orally. In that way, there can be no misunderstanding as to the time and place of the interview and the name of the counsellor.
2. (a) Yes, the Department periodically reviews its forms in order to ensure that they can be understood by all claimants. As for the form used to summon them for interviews we feel that it is perfectly intelligible, (b) No.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1. Does the Public Service Commission have in its employ a public servant of Haitian origin, Mr. Jean-Claude Bernardin and, if so, what position does he occupy?

2. Does Mr. Bernardin have a certificate of naturalization and, if so, on what date was it granted?


John (Moody) Roberts: In so far as the
Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 1. To be answered elsewhere.
2. The records of the Citizenship Registration Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State confirm that one Jean-Claude Bernardin was granted citizenship on December 2, 1976.
In so far as the Public Service Commission is concerned: 1. The Public Service Commission does not have in its employ a person by the name of Jean-Claude Bernardin.
2. To be answered elsewhere.


Mr. Cossitt: Since April 20, 1968, how many CBC English language (a) tv (b) radio stations, have been constructed or planned for the Province of Quebec and, in each case, what are the call letters and the location?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a), (b) In the province of Quebec since April 20, 1968, 11 English-language television stations and 13 English-language radio stations have either been constructed or their planned construction has been announced in connection with a CRTC hearing for a licence application. The call letters, where assigned, and locations of the stations that have been constructed or for the licensing of which hearings have been set by the CRTC are as follows:
June 29, 1977

Call Sign	Location	StatusTV: -	Baie Comeau	Under constructionCBJET	Chicoutimi	On air-	Fermont	PlannedCBFCT	Fort Chimo	PlannedCBFGT	Fort George	On airCBFHT	Fort Rupert	Under constructionCBFWT	Nouveau-Comp- toir	On airCBPBT	Poste-de-la- Baleine	PlannedCBSET-1	Schefferville	On air-	Sept-Iles	Planned-	Trois-Rivieres	PlannedRadio: -	Baie Comeau	Under constructionCBMD	Chapais	On airCBMF	Chibougamau	On airCBJE-FM	Chicoutimi	On air-	Fermont	PlannedCBMP-FM	Fort George	On airCBMQ-FM	Fort Rupert	Under constructionCBMO	Lac Megantic	On airCBMK	Lebel-Sur- Quevillon	On airCBON	Maniwaki	On airCBMW-FM	Nouveau-Comp- toir	On airCBVE-FM	Quebec	On air-	Sept-Iles	Planned
Other English-language stations are planned for the province of Quebec. The locations will, as is customary, be made public when the CRTC sets a date for a hearing following submission of a licence application by the CBC. A further 27 English-language television stations and 26 English-language radio stations are in this category.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the construction cost or estimated cost of all CBC French language (a) tv (b) radio stations, in provinces other than Quebec, presently operating, under construction, or in the planning stages and what is the combined total?
2.	What is the annual actual cost or estimated cost of all CBC French language (a) tv (b) radio stations presently operating, under construction, or in the planning stages, in all provinces other than Quebec and what is the combined total?
3.	(a) What is the combined annual cost of all items in Parts 1 and 2 (b) how many French language (i) tv (ii) radio stations are involved and, of these, how many were constructed, planned, etc. since April 20, 1968?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1 and 2.
In operation Under construction In planning stages
Construction Cost or Estimated Cost (a) TV ' (b) Radio $26,283,078	$ 7,315,425
*3,637,450	1,911,790
9,038,891	3,571,800
Annual Cost or Estimated Cost (a) TV	(b)	Radio$10,489,000	$	5,894,00098,574	65,295616,455	694,140
Total
$38,959,419	$12,799,015	$11,204,029	$6,653,435
* Projects which have received CRTC approval but are not yet in operation.
Order Paper Questions
3. (a) The question cannot be answered in a meaningful way as the "construction costs" show in part 1 above are a one-time non-recurring capital expenditure, whereas the annual costs are recurring. Therefore, the answer is as shown in part 2. (b) (i) 103; (ii) 120. Since April 20, 1962: TV-constructed, 27; under construction, 7; planned, 59; Radio-constructed, 36; under construction, 11; planned, 46.


Mr. Demers: 1.	During 1976, in Quebec, did vegetable gardeners employ foreign workers who had temporary work permits and, if so, what (a) are the names and addresses of the gardeners (b) was the number of workers involved?
2.	During 1977 to date, in Quebec, were vegetable gardeners authorized to bring in foreign workers who had temporary work permits and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of the gardeners (b) on what date did they file their applications?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes, in 1976 (a) 2 vegetable garderners (See Note 1); (b) 32 workers.
2. Yes, in 1977 to date (a) 2 vegetable gardeners (See Note 1); (b) 24 January 1977, and 27 January 1977. * [DOT]
Note 1: The Department of Manpower and Immigration regards as confidential the names and addresses of clients.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a question of privilege which not only concerns unanswered questions of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), but also some unanswered questions of my own. The other day, in response to the question of privilege I raised and to the motion upon which I founded it, the parliamentary secretary said that these things would all be done by the fall. 1 do not see any sacred difference between a fall date and this particular date. If there are answers to questions, they should be provided forthwith. If there are no answers, or the parliamentary secretary or his colleagues feel the questions are unanswerable, we should be told. This is a stalling practice and it is an invidious practice in the sense that we cannot read their hearts and minds or get through the small blood vessels to the Prime Minister's brain. The fact is, the questions are not answered because someone has animosity toward the hon. member for Leeds. I resent that, Mr. Speaker and 1 am going to voice my resentment at every opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: The parliamentary secretary has to come in here next week with some of the answers for the hon. member for Leeds or I will be on my feet every time he stands in this House, protesting on behalf of any member who I believe has a legitimate question.

June 29, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to the privileges of members of the House. I have 15 questions on the order paper, some dating back to October 12 last year and seven or eight preceding this parliament. In the dying days of this session I hope Your Honour may be able to direct himself to answering the fear that my colleague has indicated is growing in regard to questions on the order paper which pertain to a politically sensitive area and instructions coming from ministers to delay responses.
My questions range from No. 160, dated October 12, to the last one about three months ago. The questions seek information that is of essential interest to the maritime shipping community in Canada. Perhaps the failure to answer arises from the failure of Statistics Canada and other data collecting organizations to provide the appropriate data for the answers. One or two of the questions even go back one full parliament. It would be a very simple thing for the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible to rise and say that the data is not available and will not be available for a long time. A member would then have the opportunity to seek unanimous consent to withdraw the question.
I do not like the abuse of order paper questions which has been demonstrated by some of my colleagues in the chamber, and I know it has contributed to the workload of the departments. A lot of questions are irrelevant, but on the other hand members of parliament do have a right to ask questions. Where the answer is not given because the question is politically sensitive or because the appropriate information is not available, some other method of dealing with them must be found.
In the four or five parliaments during which I have sat in this chamber through the grace of the people of Dartmouth-Halifax East, I have always been left with a long list of unanswered questions. Those questions are never to the political disadvantage of the ruling party, but seek answers that are important to the maritime community which comprises a major portion of my riding. Mr. Speaker, I submit it is incumbent upon your office and your officers to direct yourselves to this question, in the hope that in the dying days of this session a better method will be found to deal with questions on the order paper.
Questions 160, 163, 174, 1,249, 1,396 and 2,156-I will not list the others-are vitally important to the changing trade patterns between this country and others upon whom we must rely for our well-being and our balance of trade payments. I think some of these questions could have been dealt with by the parliamentary secretary to the appropriate minister indicating that the information is not the type usually collected by departments and agencies of this government, and requesting that they be withdrawn. Hon. members would be willing to accept that, but we are not happy to sit through two parliaments without an answer to a simple, non-partisan question. I appreciate the indulgence of the House, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am certainly prepared to listen to other hon. members, but I think we should disabuse our minds of what constitutes a question of privilege. As I indicated to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) last week, there is no obligation upon the government to answer questions. Accordingly, on technical grounds there is no opportunity for the Chair to find privilege when the government fails to answer a question. We recently changed our rules so that questions are answered every day instead of only two days a week, as previously. This provides an opportunity daily to ask whether the remaining questions shall be allowed to stand, and for hon. members to agree, as I am sure they will continue to do, that their questions remain unanswered. That does not change the character of the exercise and form a question of privilege, however.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I will grieve very briefly. Today the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) filed what he calls a green paper on access to government documents, but which I call a black paper. In effect, it constitutes a repudiation by the government of any intention to bring in legislation. The successive shocks they have suffered over the last few weeks with regard to information show this. At page 5 there is a very pertinent observation indicating why it might not be necessary. The green paper states, at page 5:
Third, a statute creating an obligation for departments to respond directly to public applications for access to government documents might reduce the role of the member of parliament as seeker of information for, and articulator and defender of, the interests of his constituents. Opportunity for the public to seek documents directly from departments and agencies might lessen contact between citizens and members. On the other hand, the criteria for production of documents under notices of motions for the production of papers would have to correspond to any exemptions-
I quote that because after our experience in this House, mine over a great many years, and particularly the very laudable observations made by the two hon. members who preceeded me that they are not getting information, not getting the documents, and there have not been the answers, it makes this observation at page 5 hypocritical. I just put that before the Chair for its understanding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Twenty-seven days ago I drew to the attention of the parliamentary secretary questions Nos. 1,941 and 1,945. The parliamentary secretary said, in reply to that representation: "I will do my best to try and get the answers for him." I certainly hope the parliamentary secretary, given his reputation, will not be misleading the House and will get those answers for me.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 29, 1977


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-58, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31 March, 1978.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Ottawa, June 29, 1977 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wilfred Judson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 29th day of June, at 5:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Assistant Secretary to the Governor General


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 just want to bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that I am unusually warm in this place. When discussing this matter with my friend, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), he indicated to me that the air-conditioner breaks down every year at this time. I am just wondering if you can assist me in this regard. If, in fact, the air-conditioner has broken down, sir, when do you think it will be fixed? I find it extremely uncomfortable in here at this particular time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) raises a valid concern. In fact, it was reported to me late last night that the main motor of the air-conditioning system had broken down. The engineers are at work on it. They indicate that, regrettably, it will take until Saturday or Sunday to repair it. This means that today and tomorrow only, hopefully, will be the days we will be without its services. If the difficulty goes on any longer than that, I, too, will start to
Auditor General Act
look for some sinister motivation behind the annual breakdown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 27, consideration of Bill C-20, respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on Bill C-20. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, 1 declare motion No. 5 lost. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), on a point of order.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the air-conditioner has broken down and we are now nearing the end of the month of June, and in view of the question you just asked and the responses made by hon. members, 1 should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the rules of debate, Standing Order 28, which reads as follows:
Every member desiring to speak is to rise in his place, uncovered, and address himself to Mr. Speaker.
I should also like to direct Your Honour's attention to the French version of Standing Order 28, which reads in part, "la fete decouverte", which means "head uncovered". Therefore, I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) who participated in the vote contrary to Standing Order 28, in my opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Take it off, take it off.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Mr. Speaker, may 1 rise on the same point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will realize that the Standing Order to which reference has been made does not make reference to voting by members. It makes reference to the intention of hon. members to be recognized to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If and when the occasion presents itself, that we have to make delicate decisions of a discriminatory nature

as to the dress regulations of male and female members of this House, we will meet that problem. At the moment, we have not come to it.
The question is now on motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin).


Mr. Speaker:: 1 therefore declare motion No. 7 lost.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-20, respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, be concurred in.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the third time and
do pass.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -I remind my colleagues that I am not rising to speak on the metric bill. I shall speak on legislation just as important as that. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on third reading of this important piece of legislation, particularly since it will soon become law. All of us, I think, have waited a long time for this bill. We waited for it to be introduced, it has been debated and we hope it will soon become law.
The bill has had a long gestation period, and the years of government indifference to the office of the auditor general should not be forgotten, even at this time. It is fair to say that the public outcry, the work of the opposition and the work of the auditing profession exerted pressure on the government, a government insensitive to how taxpayers' money has been spent and managed these last number of years. We are, therefore, pleased to see in the final stages of passage the legislation which seeks to clarify the terms of reference under which the auditor general will work and more clearly establish his authority and powers.
Without doubt, Bill C-20 is a significant improvement over existing provisions of the Financial Administration Act which set out the terms of reference, duties and objectives of the auditor general. Our present Auditor General, Mr. Jim Mac-donell, has expressed pleasure with this bill, calling it the Magna Carta of his office. That shows, I think, his acceptance of this legislation. But there are certain dangers with which 1 wish to deal.
Auditor General Act
One of the great dangers as we consider the legislation is that more importance has been placed on this piece of legislation than is warranted, in my view. Any attempt to pass off this legislation as a panacea for restoring financial control within the government of Canada would be misleading and deceitful, to say the least. I am sure my colleagues will agree with me that there are many things that still go unanswered, ignored and undone in terms of restoring parliamentary control, financial management, control and accountability.
In that connection, I want to deal today not so much with what is in the bill but with what is not in the bill. The omissions and what these omissions imply are, to me, more crucial to the return of the over-all control of taxpayers' funds than any clause contained in the bill. Of course, the true test of this legislation, as it is of any other legislation, is how it stands the test of time. In that regard, 1 believe it is somewhat unfortunate that Bill C-20 is being considered at the same time as the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability is getting into the meat of its work. It is still conducting its studies and we are not sure as yet when it will be reporting.
Also, I think it is rather unfortunate that we are considering legislation at a time when we know the government is preparing new legislation on Crown corporations of which members of this chamber have not yet been made aware. It is a piece of legislation that is being drafted in secret. It seems to me that at least some of the content of the legislation, and indeed the recommendations of the royal commission, would have been most useful in dealing with legislation as important as the bill before us.
While indicating to the House that we on this side support the principal thrust of Bill C-20, we must make that support conditional pending the outcome of the two factors which 1 have just mentioned, namely, the new legislation which will be introduced at some later date, and the recommendations of the Lambert commission. It is our feeling that changes to the bill may very well be needed at that time, so we want to reserve the option to press the government for the needed changes to the Auditor General Act pending the outcome of these two matters.
The debate during the committee stage showed that there was a great deal of concern among members from all parties with respect to the auditor general's relationship with Crown corporations. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) refused to allow any amendments which would have strengthened the legislation in that regard, because he claimed that new amendments to the Financial Administration Act were the proper vehicle to deal with such matters. It is our feeling that in terms of the auditor general's relationship and association with Crown corporations he might not have adequate tools and safeguards built into the legislation to deal with matters relating to the financial control and management of Crown corporations. He can only rely on the President of Treasury Board in that respect and deal with it at some unspecified date in the future.
80018-5 3'/i

June 29, 1977
Auditor General Act
It would seem logical that, as a minimum, the minister might have outlined the general changes which he expects to bring forward with respect to Crown corporations. But that was not the case, either. This to some extent has inhibited our ability to examine this piece of legislation thoroughly and to give it the kind of special attention it deserves because of these unknown factors. When the new Crown corporations legislation is introduced, and when the royal commission brings in its findings, it will probably be incumbent upon us and the government to move some amendments. So, once again, it is on that basis that we are supporting the legislation now. The Auditor General has expressed the desire that the bill be passed as soon as possible, and we will certainly respect his wish; but at the same time I can assure hon. members that we will not be losing our files on this legislation.
The next area of concern which I want to express is with regard to the relationship between the government and the auditor general. May I say at the outset that our party's respect for and total, unqualified confidence in the auditor general has been placed on the record on countless occasions. However, I have to say that there are trends which we have observed which cause us some uneasiness. I am speaking about what appears to us and what has been perceived as a less than adequate distance between the government and the office of the auditor general. I am reminded of the words of the former president of the treasury board, the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), who was fond of saying that his relationship with the auditor general was cordial but not cosy. I think it is fair to say, if my observation is correct, that the relationship of the president of treasury board and the auditor general has become rather more cosy in recent times.
Let me illustrate a case in point. A clear example of this new-found brotherhood is to be found in the reaction to some 38 amendments which committee members advanced at the committee stage. The number was later reduced to 21 because of duplications, etc. The Auditor General and the President of the Treasury Board were essentially in agreement on every one of those amendments. This agreement for the most part was total, except in four instances when the President of the Treasury Board disagreed. The Auditor General termed the amendments acceptable, but prefaced that position by saying he preferred the present wording. The similarity of the position taken by Treasury Board and that of the Auditor General- traditionally two forces at cross-forces-can, if overdone, impede the effectiveness of the office of the auditor general. There is a perception, well founded or otherwise, that the auditor general might become more the auditor for the government and less the auditor of the government for parliament. That is a concern which some of us feel.
Many of the provisions in the original Bill C-20 also underlined this development. Clauses 7 and 8 require that the auditor general's report be submitted to the minister of finance, and the minister is to table it within 15 days. The results of this were made clear last November when the government used this time to devise the stalling tactic of

appointing a royal commission the establishment of which was announced on the same day as the Minister of Finance tabled the Auditor General's report. Fortunately, an amendment was introduced and accepted to end this practice by referring the auditor general's annua! report directly to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
I think this is a very important measure because it also serves as a symbolic gesture to parliament in that the auditor general, by referring his report directly to the Speaker of the House, becomes more directly responsible to parliament through the Speaker, and thereby to members of parliament. It is very important that the auditor general is seen in the eyes of the public as a servant of parliament. He must not be seen primarily as answerable only to the minister of finance but, rather, to be answerable to parliament through individual members of parliament and through the Speaker. I think that provision advances a principle that we feel is important.
It is interesting to note that at the time Bill C-20 was introduced, and throughout the subsequent debate which took place, there was no comment made by the office of the Auditor General with respect to this provision. It is fair to say that the Auditor General supported the amendment, but so, too, did Treasury Board.
Another provision which has caused hon. members on this side some concern is clause 10. Unfortunately, our amendment to correct the deficiency in it was turned down by Treasury Board and by the Auditor General. This clause provides that whenever it appears to the auditor general that any public money has been improperly retained by any person, he shall forthwith report the circumstances of the case to the president of treasury board. This clause is a continuation of the current provisions of the Financial Administration Act, and in my view it is seriously deficient. Among the several cases of improper retention of funds which auditors general have had to deal with over the years, the best known case was referred to in the 1972 annual report. In paragraph 74 of that report the then auditor general said he had to report the improper retention of moneys which involved the then president of treasury board himself. That case involved some $34 million of public funds.
In that particular case the then auditor general waited several months for the then president of treasury board to respond to his questions before he was obliged to report that illegal retention to the House of Commons in his annual report. What is more interesting is that during that lapse of time an election was held, so the facts of this matter, which could have been potentially embarrassing to the government, were withheld from parliament and thereby from the public of Canada. Because of the possibility of further instances where presidents of treasury board could arrange for the improper retention of public moneys, it is absurd and totally unacceptable to have auditors general reporting such instances only to presidents of treasury board.
My argument is strengthened by the fact that under the existing legislation the auditor general can bring forward a
June 29, 1977

special report from time to time on any matter he considers to be of a significant nature, so it seems to me that surely this loophole should be closed. I am not suggesting for one minute that the present President of the Treasury Board would exercise that opinion, but as I said earlier, the true test of this legislation will be how it stands the test of time. 1 want to reiterate again that we in our party have great confidence in the present Auditor General. We can well understand what he has gone through in terms of the bargaining and negotiating which may have taken place, particularly as a result of the 1976 report he brought before the House. It was a very strong report, with some very strong recommendations. In very straightforward language it called upon the government to clean up the mess. The Auditor General was very straightforward and frank in advocating a formula for cleaning up the mess, and the recommendation of the appointment of a controller general was certainly one recommendation about which he felt very strongly.
However, I suppose it is fair to say that he was also very keen about getting this legislation through. He was very excited about it. I think there had to be some balance, a little bit of give and take, and quite frankly I am sure we can sympathize with him in trying to obtain the best of both worlds. While the relationship between the Auditor General and the President of the Treasury Board appears to be very close, I am sure that will not in any way jeopardize or compromise the ability of the Auditor General to do his job properly. I hope that in the future, when others are appointed to this very onerous and difficult task, the relationship between the government and the appointees will be kept at a distance in order to preserve the independence and effectiveness of this very important position.
It should be recognized that under the present arrangement the office of the auditor general has a fair amount of financial resources to distribute in terms of obtaining professional help from the accounting profession. This, too, is a matter which cannot be treated lightly. The auditor general has millions of dollars to distribute on outside contracts, which could easily go to friends of the party in power. That is why it is very important that we choose an auditor general who has the high calibre and the high degree of integrity of the present Auditor General. In that connection, I have to note that it was with a great deal of reluctance that the government accepted the idea that minimal qualifications should be imposed upon the appointment of auditor general. We proposed, and the government accepted the fact, that the person who is selected for this office should be a qualified auditor. The original section of the act did not define any qualifications whatsoever.
It is important that the confidence of the public and of parliament be maintained. If the auditor general is to be seen as a strong, independent watchdog of the funds which are distributed on behalf of the people of Canada, in order for him to keep that confidence and that independence he must be a man who is highly competent and highly qualified in this field. Only in this way can he maintain the effectiveness of the office as well as its prestige and integrity.
Auditor General Act
I spoke a few moments ago about the large amount of funds now available to the office of the auditor general. In no way are we questioning the efficacy of allowing a rather substantial increase in appropriations for the office of auditor general. Since this Auditor General was appointed, the budget of his office has increased from $3.8 million to $20.4 million. That means that the office has been significantly strengthened. It has been strengthened because of the resources available to the office and the additional manpower it has, and it will be strengthened by this legislation.
However, throughout the process of strengthening the office of the auditor general, parliament has been weakened. That bothers us. It bothers us that amendments such as the valid amendments proposed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) are treated so lightly and casually. The auditor general releases his report, the report is referred to a committee and in many respects the committee becomes an adjudicator. It has to consider the report and hear the evidence of the minister or the government officials involved, and in many respects it has to be the judge. The committee does not have the power, the resources or the capability to do this job in an effective manner.
The committee should have unlimited power to call witnesses and papers. The auditor general can exercise the provisions of the Inquiries Act. We went through such an exercise when we were dealing with the AECL and the Polysar issues. Notwithstanding a very determined and sincere effort on the part of committee members from both sides of the House, we were not able to get very far in getting to the bottom of the references which were alluded to in the report of the Auditor General.
It is important that the office of the auditor general be strong, but it is also important that we recognize that the auditor general is a servant of parliament. He reports to parliament. The committee which receives his report must be equally strong so that it can deal with his reports in an intelligent and effective manner. With the power of parliament being eroded, a strong auditor general could do a good job. But in many ways parliament is powerless to act. We must remember that in the 1976 report he warned the country that parliament is close to losing control of the public purse.
What disturbs me is that neither Bill C-20 nor any other measure of the government we've seen lately do anything to alleviate this state of affairs. My colleagues and I have tried to have measures incorporated in the bill which would provide an expansion in parliamentary powers to complement the increase in powers and resources given to the auditor general. We wanted the public accounts committee to be protected by statute and to be given the investigatory powers, the staff and resources that would enable it to do its job. The inability of the committee system to deal effectively with the report of the Auditor General is highlighted by his 1976 report. I refer specifically to the matter of AECL. The Auditor General was only able to report the irregularity in this case because proper

June 29, 1977
Auditor General Act
receipts were not maintained. If they had been, parliament would never have known about it. Presumably, under the new Auditor General Act, the auditor general could now include reference to payments such as those in his report to the House, no matter what receipts were on hand, by questioning the efficiency and effectiveness of the spending.
Where does this leave the parliament of Canada and the committee system, Mr. Speaker? We are back to square one. The auditor general has more power to comment on the expenditure of funds which in his view may not be spent in an effective manner, than the committee has to get to the root of the problem. The committee has not been strengthened at all. All it can do is study the report, hear the government's witnesses and balance the two views before coming to a decision.
The AECL hearings were stonewalled. We were not given complete information, nor were we able to call the witnesses we desired or required. Our work was, therefore, ineffective and incomplete.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: And the minister did not answer questions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister had frequent lapses of memory about approval of capital budgets and other things. That the committee did not do a good job of looking into the AECL fiasco is no reflection upon its members, but is the result of a hopelessly inadequate committee system. The government continues to refer to the committee system in glowing terms, but if it is to be an effective tool of this parliament it must be improved and upgraded. It is a sorry situation when the press have more resources than the committee system. They did a much better job of checking into the AECL matter than the committee, because they had more resources, more money, more time. Passage of this bill will not improve the committee system, Mr. Speaker. We may find out about more nefarious practices, but we will still have no way of getting to the root of the problem and finding out what actually transpired.
The government's abuse of the $1 vote is another example of how parliamentary control is being destroyed. During the committee proceedings on Bill C-20 we attempted to have an amendment passed that would allow the auditor general to comment on money spent for purposes other than that for which it was originally appropriated. Treasury Board turned the amendment down on the grounds that this bill was not the proper vehicle for discouraging the use of $1 votes. What is the proper vehicle, Mr. Speaker? There were 52 $1 vote items, some of which Your Honour found to be out of order. Some had to come back in the form of legislation.
As far as I am concerned, and as far as this government is concerned, there is no proper vehicle for restoring the authority of parliament. But it must be restored, Mr. Speaker. Parliament is becoming more and more of a nuisance to this government. To realize this we just have to look at the form and content of the estimates and the way they are handled; at the $1 vote items; at the weak forecasting of expenditures and

the use of supplementary estimates; at the guillotine rule; at the powerless committees. There can be no doubt about this government's intentions, and the passage of the Auditor General Act does nothing to change things. The government is in a sorry state.


Frank Oberle: Innocent ignorance.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We look at Crown corporations and-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired. The special order which was adopted to extend the hours of sitting, at the same time limited speeches to 30 minutes. The hon. member would require unanimous consent to continue. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try not to abuse the privilege. I want to conclude by saying the spending programs of the government have grown astronomically. We have a situation where Crown corporations have become kingdoms unto themselves. I am happy that the minister is going to look into this situation very closely. Let there be no doubt that Bill C-20 will not do the job of clearing up the mess of government mismanagement and improper parliamentary control.
It seems to me we should be looking at two or three areas that would help us, as parliamentarians, to examine the spending practices and habits of the government. 1 think we should consider the possibility of establishing some form of independent review agency to appraise and evaluate ongoing government programs and consider alternative ways of operating those programs more efficiently and effectively. There should be an accurate appraisal of cost-benefit analysis of existing programs. Surely it is time we considered initiating some of the concepts of zero-base budgeting. Perhaps we should start with a few selected Crown corporations or government agencies and later extend it to other areas. The incremental budget process which has been used over the past few years has been a disaster.
I note in the Globe and Mail that the President of the United States has mandated that the federal budget for fiscal 1979 will use zero-base budgeting. In addition, it is stated that 11 states have adopted zero-base budgeting, more than ten cities are trying it out, and major companies have applied it to some of their operations. It is time we seriously considered the concept of zero-base budgeting. It is still a relatively new theme. There are a number of seminars and conferences on this very important subject. We should get on with the job.
As well, we should consider very seriously establishing a permanent joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to deal solely with the Crown corporations in this country. The committee should be composed of a permanent membership and should conduct itself in a non-partisan
June 29, 1977

manner. It should be given the power to initiate investigations on its own, and given the necessary legal, technical and financial staff to properly conduct its task. All reports of Crown corporations should automatically be referred to that joint committee, and any corporation could be called before the committee at its discretion. We should have either this committee or a royal commission to examine all Crown corporations in order to determine if they are still fulfilling a useful purpose and if, in fact, many have not outlived their usefulness and have become redundant. We know that Crown corporations are created by the stroke of a pen. Many times they are created to serve a distinct purpose. However, after they have fulfilled that purpose they continue to exist. There is good reason to have a thorough examination of the numerous Crown corporations in existence.
Fourth, as I said earlier, we must work toward restoring the supremacy of parliament by overhauling the committee system, strengthening our committees, giving them more power, more resources and the power to initiate action. Moreover, this government must become more liberal with the information that it provides to parliament and the public of Canada. As a starter, the government should introduce a freedom of information act along the lines advocated by my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River. We in this country are facing a confidence crisis in our institutions and parliament. There is a growing wave of cynicism in this country. People believe our parliamentary institutions, parliament and governments, do not listen. The government is not held accountable to the people. Crown corporations are not held accountable. There is a void of information. Surely this is one area where public confidence could be improved by providing a greater amount of information on how the people's money is being spent and whether, in fact, it is being spent wisely or foolishly. Government and parliament must regain control over public spending in this country. The public service must be rewarded for efficiency rather than empire building. We must work toward containing the growth of the public service. What is really happening in this country, as it has happened in other western industrialized countries, is that we are living in a society where we have a growing number of non-producers and a lessening number of producers.
In conclusion, it is with some regret that we do not have a total package before us which would clean up the mess of government mismanagement and lack of government control. I can only hope, on behalf of all Canadians and especially those who contribute so much of their hard-earned money to the government in taxes, that the new powers bestowed upon the auditor general will be used to shake this government into action. Only if he takes the offensive can these new powers, and Bill C-20, be seen as worth while and justified. Only then can the auditor general be really fulfilling his mandate to protect the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. I must say, in reference to the remarks of the last speaker, that I am far less concerned about the committee system as it is constituted than I am about the ineffectiveness
Auditor General Act
of the opposition in these committees. The official opposition has its research bureau paid for by public funds. It surely is incumbent on the members of the opposition to decide for what purposes they use the resources available to them.
The discussions in committee on Bill C-20 have been most interesting and, for the most part, non-partisan. Amendments to improve and strengthen the bill were discussed and many have now been incorporated, including suggestions put forward by members of the opposition parties. Amendments that were not accepted are, in some instances, to be considered in changes which are proposed to other pieces of legislation. One of the amendments voted down earlier today is in this category. I concentrated my attention on that section of the bill which deals with economy and efficiency in the public service and the various government agencies; also on the effectiveness of the programs. I want to make reference to that section at this time.
In the bill one can read that each report of the auditor general shall call attention to anything that he considers to be of significance and which should be brought to the attention of the House of Commons. These include any cases in which he has observed that money has been expended without due regard to economy or efficiency, or satisfactory procedures have not been established to measure and report upon the effectiveness of programs. The specific subsections are intended to implement that part of the recommendations of the independent review committee proposing that the auditor general should, in his annual report to the House of Commons, call attention to any cases where he has observed that value for money has not been obtained for any expenditure or expenditures.
The committee described its "value for money" concept when it indicated that the concept encompasses three interrelated components: whether the money is expended economically and efficiently, and whether the program on which it is expended is effective in meeting its objectives. Economy and efficiency are susceptible to reasonably objective definition and measurement, and the auditor general should take due account of them in conducting his examination of expenditures. However, the assessment of the effectiveness of a program or policy depends upon the political judgment of parliament and the confidence that parliament has in the government of the day. The auditor general is required to report to the House of Commons when he observes that satisfactory procedures have not been established to measure and report upon the effectiveness of programs where such procedures could appropriately and reasonably be implemented.
The bill places no restriction on the auditor general's right to assess the various procedures used in government to ensure economy and to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of programs. The auditor general would report to the House on poor procedures and on the government's failure to implement satisfactory procedures where they could reasonably be expected to be applied. An assessment of the procedures should include an assessment of the adequacy of the reporting of the

June 29, 1977
Auditor General Act
results of the government's own evaluation techniques both within government and to parliament. The difference in wording between subsections (d) and (e) of paragraph 7(2) emphasize the qualitative difference between the concepts of "economy" and "efficiency" which are susceptible to objective measurement, and that of "effectiveness" whose measurement is essentially a matter of judgment.
Bill C-20 requires the auditor general to comment on the absence of effectiveness measurement procedures where he feels that they could be of benefit, but clearly excludes the auditor general from conducting effective audits himself and thus becoming involved in judgemental decisions which are, by their very nature, political in character. The evaluation of the effectiveness of the government programs is a constitutional responsibility of parliament itself, and the wording of the bill protects the office of the auditor general from any danger of being drawn into political debate.
Everyone is concerned about the need for procedures which may be used to ensure that federal government programs are managed economically and efficiently and that they are effective in meeting the stated requirements of government policies. The underlying intent of sections 7(2)(d) and (e) of Bill C-20 is to require the auditor general to comment on uneconomical and inefficient practices, and furthermore to comment on any absence of effective evaluation procedures, including reporting mechanisms, where he feels that such procedures could be beneficially applied.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 is a good piece of legislation that should go a long way toward alleviating the anxieties of the public who are naturally concerned about the manner in which their taxes are spent. I can now unreservedly support the passing of Bill C-20, an act respecting the office of the auditor general.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, administration of finances is the pivot on which management of a household, a business, a hobby, recreation, or any function progresses or fails, depending on the desire and capability of the person or persons handling the funds. When the operation is strictly personal or a private venture, the impact is perhaps not serious-at least, the amount involved is small. When we come to the issue of government financial administration, the picture is entirely different: we are involved in the trustworthiness of government, which operates solely on the taxes it levies on the population of this country, a matter of grave importance, and huge amounts.
It is all very well to say the federal government is doing the job efficiently simply because we have an auditor general, but his authority comes into effect after the funds have been spent. Therefore, regardless of the degree of authority he has, he is placed is an unenviable situation. The auditor of government books must try to ensure the general public that their money has been used sensibly and that adequate value was received, but he does not have an opportunity of limiting the amount paid, or checking on what was received, until long afterward.

At best, his scrutiny, diligence and findings can affect government operations in the ensuing year or in the future.
The auditor general is the individual our taxpayers rely on to restore common sense so that government spending will be controlled. The auditor general has said the finances of this government are practically out of control. What has the government done to correct such careless disregard of money which does not belong to it to squander? I am not aware of any serious intent or action on the part of the government to cut back or to curtail spending to legitimate projects, although I have heard and read many cabinet ministers boast of their restrictions. Perhaps they have succeeded in convincing some taxpayers that their efforts are sincere and the results positive, but those who are aware of this year's $7 billion budget deficit must have doubts.
The auditor general does not, of course, participate in the preparation of the federal budget, but he should have authority to ensure that every dollar is accounted for precisely, that it had to be spent, and that full value was returned. If he cannot inform the general public of what is taking place behind the scenes of government finances, who will?
When I speak of government, I do not exclude the operations of parliament itself, over which the auditor general does not have any say, before or after. Criticism was levelled at parliament by the news media when it became known that House of Commons' staff positions totalled 2,554 last year and now number 2,746, averaging more than ten for each member of parliament. One must not overlook the related expenditures, regardless of where the staff is located-furniture, equipment, stationery, salaries, etc. Only members of parliament, all elected representatives, can exercise restraint as far as this House is concerned. Everyone could and should do so, thereby setting an example. Somebody must start the ball of restraint moving in the right direction, and in my opinion Parliament Hill is the place to start the game.
Mr. Speaker, are Canadians better served by this out of control hoist in the cost of operating the House of Commons? Is it fair to criticize this government, or any level of government, for overspending or overgoverning if we are following the same trend like a flock of sheep moving to greener pastures? I realize that everyone in this House is responsible to his or her electors, but I doubt that any voter would criticize an elected representative for exercising restraint and explaining why and how this was accomplished. Every worthy cause or deed has a beginning, and that beginning could be small. Its size at the onset is not important, but how it grows in the right direction is. Would it not be far better to be admired for good management and sensible use of taxpayer dollars than to do something just because others are? Why not be different? Why not restrict spending right here on Parliament Hill where the laws are enacted?
Yesterday, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) drew attention to a dangerous statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when attending the recent Commonwealth Conference where he said there is such a thing as one-party democracy, a form of government with which he apparently agrees. If
June 29, 1977

this is the philosophy of the Prime Minister of Canada, head of a government which has been in office for approximately 36 of the last 42 years, it is not difficult to see what is happening to our country, and why, with that kind of thinking. In other words, this government is not satisfied with a stranglehold over the country's economy, but has a goal to exercise its dictatorship over the very well-being of its population. The longer this is perpetuated, the greater the danger of sacrificing our destiny, Mr. Speaker.
Greed is at the root of all evil, or so it is said. Perhaps greed of power is the most dangerous of the countless forms of greed we know. This government, in its attempt to camouflage inept handling of public funds, and by its willingness to continue to waste and squander that never-ending source of supply through an inadequate bill, is an excellent example of abuse of power and its insatiable appetite to spend.
The responsibilities of the auditor general are onerous; his position is one of the most important within the federal government; he should not be hampered or muzzled, restricted or ignored while he is examining the books and after he has reported the results. My preference would be to permit the auditor general of Canada to be more responsible than this legislation specifies, by giving him the power and the tools which would enable him to certify the accounts of Canada, without reservation. To place his signature of approval on those accounts there must be legislation to allow it and to protect him and his position.
Mr. Speaker, I now come to the unacceptable policy of this government of making decisions by order in council, a method by which large amounts are spent without reference to parliament or to the auditor general. That system of government is really not democratic, for the simple reason that it is secret and never publicly revealed. If the cabinet insists on carrying out its responsibilities in that manner, there should be a clause in this bill authorizing the auditor general personally to scrutinize all moneys allocated by order in council.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Blind faith.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yes, as my hon. friend from Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) has just said, it is now a matter of blind faith. Otherwise, not only do MPs not know, but the source of those funds, the general public, are kept in the dark as well. Who pulls the string on the order in council purse? The auditor general has said his desire is to have the relationship of his office with the government cordial, but not cosy. Nobody would frown on cordiality, but I fear that the relationship could become both cordial and cosy, though not through the intent or actions of the auditor general. What is meant by the word "cordial"? Does it mean that officials within the department of the auditor general, many of whom are former senior employees of government with a direct line of communication to cabinet, can undermine the authority and aim of the auditor general through their cordiality? Can anyone, morally, serve two masters or are there two masters? Often a slip of the tongue during friendly, harmless conversation results in harm. Do such people sever all mental connections with former
Royal Assent
associates, business, social or otherwise? Would it be fair to expect that? Are they unconsciously influenced by their former occupation and automatic ties to government, and by their access to the orders in council which I mentioned earlier? Being human beings, we all have weaknesses and I understand it would not be easy for certain individuals to cut themselves off, so far as work is concerned, from their former attitudes and thinking while involved in government spending and decisions in one federal department or agency when they take on duties in the office of the auditor general. Can such personnel in fact detach their minds to the degree required so that they can efficiently perform their job and ably assist our auditor general?


An hon. Member:: Keep going.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 understand that my colleague from Red Deer (Mr. Towers) has only a few more remarks to make, and in the interests of getting this legislation through would it be possible for him to conclude his remarks before we follow Black Rod to the other place?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Or when we come back.


Mr. Speaker:: There is nothing to prevent the hon. member concluding his remarks and possibly completing passage of the bill, without seeing the clock, when we return from the other place.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-58, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1978-Chapter No. 22.
Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act-Chapter No. 23.
7204
[Stage Direction]
June 29, 1977
Auditor General Act
Bill C-26, An Act respecting the organization of certain scientific activities of the Government of Canada-Chapter No. 24.
Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Judges Act and other Acts in respect of judicial matters-Chapter No. 25.
Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and the National Transportation Act-Chapter No. 26.
Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act- Chapter No. 27.
Bill C-53, An Act to correct anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, errors and other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada 1970 and other Acts subsequent to 1970-Chapter No. 28.
Bill C-12, An Act to implement conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax-Chapter No. 29.
Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Lands Surveys Acts-Chapter No. 30.
Bill C-6, An Act respecting Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities in Canada-Chapter No. 31.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-20, respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we were interrupted, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) had almost concluded his remarks. I believe there is a disposition to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks, then to put the third reading motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are agreeable to concluding the deliberation on third reading stage, the hon. member for Red Deer who is not here having, 1 understand, completed his blistering attack on the government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the acting government House leader what is to be the business for tomorrow.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we intend to proceed tomorrow with the report stage of Bill C-51.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Could the acting House leader say what is to happen with respect to Bill C-49, so that we know what is happening?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, there has been the usual discussion concerning the business for today. We hoped that we could deal with the auditor general bill and the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan this afternoon. Unfortunately, that was not possible. We want to proceed at the earliest opportunity with consideration of the Canada Pension Plan amendments, but intend tomorrow to call Bill C-51.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I assume that on Monday we shall deal with Bill C-27, the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, as intended, and that Bill C-49 will not come forward until after next Monday.


Ralph Goodale: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will come on some time in July.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, July is not far off-one day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 6.11 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Thursday, June 30, 1977