1977-05-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. Yesterday the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) announced that the government had seen the merits of the argument put by the official opposition on behalf of western grain producers and was reconsidering the need for the metric measures "tonne" and "hectare". We were distressed to hear that the bill would not be amended but that proclamation would be delayed for an indeterminate period. Because we believe the House should not be asked to waste its time debating provisions which may or may not be proclaimed, and because we think it repugnant to be asked to provide government negotiators with the power to blackmail producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House declines to deal with legislation which may not be proclaimed, and requests that the metric conversion bill be returned to committee so that further testimony may be heard and ill-advised provisions deleted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the study released today by Statistics Canada which projects scandalously high and growing levels of youth unemployment as a result of nearly 500,000 full-time students entering the labour force this summer, and since we already have a national official youth unemployment rate of 15.6 per cent, giving Canada the highest
level of youth unemployment among the industrialized countries of the world, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration be instructed to prepare and table in this House as soon as possible a comprehensive plan of action designed to reduce the level of youth unemployment; that this plan should include details of specific programs for relieving youth unemployment, job creation budgets and the projected job creation impact of the programs; and that these details include targeted levels of reduction in youth unemployment over the next five years and the means which the government proposes to use to reach those targets.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that all the members of the Canadian Life Insurance Association who have written to me strongly oppose the new budget proposals the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) brought forward on March 31 concerning the taxation of life insurance death benefits, on the ground that these proposals are unfair to those who prefer to provide themselves for the financial security of their families through life insurance policies rather than let governments support them, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to take any step he may deem necessary to withdraw the new proposals he put forward in his last budget concerning the taxing of life insurance benefits, so that the funds created through life insurance policies may serve only for the purpose of the insured, namely provide a minimum level of comfort.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 4, 1977
Labour Conditions


POST OFFICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the complaints by the Manitoba trucking industry that the government's postpak program is forcing the private trucking industry into direct competition with a government subsidized program and that the post office does not have to operate under the terms and conditions of carriage set by provincial regulatory boards, furthermore since a tender has been called for the furnishing of two one-ton trucks to provide service between Winnipeg and Thunder Bay, a route which is serviced by several daily airflights, four buses and five truck lines, during a time of energy conservation and supposed cutbacks in government spending, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That this House direct the Postmaster General to review the postpak program and to remove any postpak services which are in direct competition with the private trucking industry.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the labour dispute between the 115 Radio-Mutuel employees and the management of this radio station which serves the Montreal, Quebec City, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivieres areas.
Since the station management refuses to negotiate and resorts to such illegal procedures as the refusal by the management of CJMS-Montreal to post the official list of employees entitled to vote, which is contrary to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) assure the House that the 115 employees of those four radio stations who have been trying to form a union for eight years be treated fairly by the Department of Labour and the Canada Labour Council.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such motion

requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. It relates to a report sponsored by his department entitled "Determination of probabilities of oil spills in Canadian Arctic waters". I thank the minister's office for having made a copy of this report available to me last night. The report, which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development denied ever seeing when he replied to questions in the House last Friday, indicates blow-out probabilities in the Arctic in connection with our drilling there and makes numerous recommendations to deal with the risk. Can the minister explain why the report was not made known to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at least before last Friday, particularly when it was apparently delivered to the Department of the Environment on or about March 28, over five weeks ago, and in particular because it is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who has the responsibility for agreeing to summer drilling permits in the Beaufort Sea area.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did not know of the report, he was in exactly the same position I was. I knew that a report had been commissioned some time ago, but I did not know that the report was ready. I do not know the exact delivery date. I took notice of the report when I came to this House on either this past Monday or Friday of last week. Therefore, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was in exactly the same position as I was.
I might say to the hon. member that the reason the report was not immediately made available is that it has not yet been translated-that is why I cannot table it. It was in these circumstances that I circulated copies to those members who are interested. It is not a secret report. It was being made ready for publication and release.


ESTIMATE OF RISK OF OIL BLOW-OUT WHILE DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot): I hope the minister is not telling us that it is acceptable to him that a report dealing with this specific issue of oil-risk blow-outs, should sit for five weeks, particularly when the cabinet is considering the issuance of drilling permits. He will recall that press stories last week indicated a risk factor of one in 300 and the report shows that this figure is, indeed, correct. But that relates to risks from all kinds of blow-outs-oil, water and gas both minor, major and intermediate. Would the minister confirm, because the report is written in technical language, that according to this study the risk factor of a major oil blow-out, that is a blow-out of more than 50,000 barrels-the North Sea blowout involved roughly 250,000 barrels-is one chance in one million? Are the authors of the report saying that the risk factor of a major oil spill in the Beaufort Sea is one in one million?
Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that the report was sitting for five weeks. It was, indeed, dated in March but a report of this size-it was a rather voluminous report-does take some time before becoming available to the department. Anyway, I made it available as soon as it was available to me. As for the risk factors, I tried to understand the arithmetic of these experts and with the help of my officials I came to the conclusion that the risk factors as reflected in the report-and I must emphasize that the risk factor is not one uniform element-there is a risk of gas blow-outs or oil blow-outs, oil leakage, and so on-that the report does not "infirm" the figures for risk factors which were given to cabinet when the decision was made a year ago.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
William Herbert Jarvis: May I direct my final supplementary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who may not, as of this date, have received the report. I do not know. Having regard to the statement by the authors of the report that by far the most important single factor in blow-out risk is human error, and despite the fact that the minister said last Friday that the report was not the subject of consideration before permits were granted, will the minister consider the implications of this report, now that it is available, when making his recommendation to cabinet concerning the five-year drilling permits which may or may not be issued to Canmar and Dome?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I do not recall ever having said that such a report would not be the subject of consideration before making a decision.


An hon. Member:: You said you had never heard of it.
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: I had never heard of it at that time, but we have many reports before us now, all relevant to the subject matter and they will all be taken into consideration. A report such as that to which the hon. member refers will be given very serious attention.


DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA-CO-OPERATION WITH MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Since it is basically the responsibility of the minister to make a decision on drilling in the Beaufort Sea in conjunction with the Minister of the Environment, can the hon. gentleman advise us what co-ordination and co-operation exists between himself and the Minister of the Environment, bearing in mind the fact that the Department of the Environment apparently received this report some time in March and the minister says he had no knowledge of it on April 29. Since April 29, has the minister met with the Minister of the Environment to discuss this report or to discuss drilling in the Beaufort Sea?


William Warren Allmand: There is a very good co-operation between the Minister of the Environment and myself. We met last Friday morning before coming into the House to consider this subject matter and we have had further meetings.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON RISK IN USE OF TANKERS TO BRING OIL SOUTH FROM ARCTIC
Douglas Charles Neil: The hon. gentleman said last Friday that he knew nothing about the report. Does he plan to hold a further meeting with regard to it? It states that one of the biggest problems, and one which the authors admittedly did not tackle, arises from oil spills from tankers. Since delivery of oil by tanker is one of the alternative ways of bringing frontier oil south, would the minister undertake to supply a report on the risk we face by using tankers to carry oil?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when I said that I met with the Minister of the Environment last Friday I meant with respect to the question of drilling in the Beaufort Sea, not with respect to one particular report. We discussed the entire question. With respect to the report the hon. member is talking about now, I will look into that possibility.


SUGGESTION PRESIDENT CARTER BE ASKED TO EXTEND DATE FOR DECISION ON NORTHERN PIPELINE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said in the House that he had not been obliged to

May 4, 1977
Oral Questions
make a commitment to President Carter on the September 1 date regarding Canada's position on a northern pipeline, but that he did so because it was in Canada's interests to make a decision "lest the opportunity be removed from us". Considering that this decision by the government of Canada will be one of the most important since the war, and considering that President Carter can get a 90 day extension beyond September 1 before he must make a recommendation in his country, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has suggested to President Carter that the proposed deadline for a government of Canada decision be extended?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this question was asked before and I assured the House that President Carter was fully aware of his rights under this 90 day extension. Of course, if we cannot make up our minds in time we will ask him to use this 90 day extension, but I want the House to realize that there is pressure upon the President to decide as soon as possible. The difficulties that they had this winter with the cold and fuel shortages have put great pressure upon the administration to make an early decision. That is all I wanted to convey to the House. Of course, we would like to have a much longer period of time, but there is always the possibility that the United States would go ahead without us and it is our view that it is better to decide what is in Canada's interests than to be faced with a fait accompli.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping that since the question was last asked the Prime Minister and the government would have come to its senses and requested an extension of the time. Since the Prime Minister said yesterday in this House that "we must move within a certain time frame", I ask the Prime Minister specifically whether he would tell the House if President Carter has set this time frame and informed the government of Canada that unless it opted for either of the two internal pipe-line routes the United States would proceed with the El Paso route. If this is the case, does he not acknowledge that this is a form of blackmail coming from the United States to the government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, one would seem to have a very poor understanding of the realities to make this allegation. The leader of the New Democratic Party should understand that the El Paso route is the less preferred one for the United States but that it is a possible one. If they are faced with procrastination or the incapability of the Canadian government and parliament to decide, they are liable to go for the less favoured route.


An hon. Member:: It's the government that's incapable.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, for Christ's sake shut up. Obviously the New Democratic Party is not only misinformed but uninterested in this subject.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that the Alcan study has been compressed into a few months and that the proceedings of the National Energy Board have been speeded

up almost beyond comprehension, and considering that this decision is going to have a monumental impact on all of Canada's financial decisions in a few years ahead, quite apart from the environmental impact in the north, does the Prime Minister think it is so absurd in terms of Canada's interests to request in a calm, cool and serious way to the President of the United States that they postpone the existing deadline to beyond September 1? A lot of Canadians do not think that suggestion is so ridiculous.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. I am just suggesting to the House that the President of the United States knows his duties. There are political pressures on him to come up with an early decision.


John Edward Broadbent: Do you know your duty?


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Andr£ Fortin (Lotbiniere): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
On one hand, in its report of last November, the Treasury Board agreed to the principle of variable timetables for public servants in the assessment of departmental programs and, on the other hand, the 1,200 members of the translation group of the professional institute have now been legally on strike since March 29 for this very reason. Mr. Speaker, the conciliation report agrees with this principle and recommends inclusion of a flexible hour clause in the collective agreement. But, the Treasury Board refuses to include this principle in the agreement. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is aware of this situation and what he intends to do to put an end to this strike and ensure equitable treatment for these translators? Would he urge the Treasury Board to sign as soon as possible this agreement endorsed by these union members?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this matter with the President of the Treasury Board as soon as possible.


MANPOWER
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Some recent but only partial national information from Statistics Canada indicate that there will be more than 120,000 young Canadians joining the work force this year who will not find job opportunities available to them and will
May 4, 1977

be joining the 400,000 young unemployed Canadians. Will the minister now tell the House whether he has any long-term strategy to provide young Canadians with meaningful, longterm and secure job opportunities and not just band-aid measures?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not concentrate only on the short-term measures that have already been announced. There are funds under Young Canada Works, the Student Summer Employment Assistance Program, the JET program with summer and winter components. In addition to that, under our Careers Canada, Careers Provinces and Choices, we are endeavouring to bridge the gap between the two, between leaving school and entering the work force, by giving the kind of counselling, training and in some cases job experience that is needed by young people to help them get into the work force.
In addition to that, I have had the opportunity to visit with my counterparts in both Italy and France to see if they had come up with any new ideas or something on a permanent basis that might be useful. Senator Humphrey in the United States has highlighted his own particular bill with the fact that this is not a parochial or local problem but is a national problem to all western industrialized societies.


Mr. Alexander:: You are an amazing man!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in the province of Ontario they are, per capita, giving more money than the federal government to summer students, and in view of the fact that in 1974 and 1975 the federal government poured in $87 million and this year is pouring in some $96 million- and when you consider inflation, that is less-why is the federal government not putting as much emphasis and paying in as much funds this year when unemployment is higher than in the past?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite selective in his statistics. He could examine, under the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program, the funds that are spent there. In the large measure, the young people of this country take advantage of that particular program, which is a permanent ongoing program. Given the funds that are available and the obligation we have to young people, government certainly has a role to play. We are playing it to the best of our ability. That does not mean to say with more money we could not do a better job.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. My question relates to a scandalous situation in the administration
Oral Questions
of the income tax law. I wrote the minister on March 23, and I brought this up in the House on April 21. Can the minister tell us what action he and his colleagues are taking to collect millions of dollars income tax interest for the taxation years 1950 and 1954 by one John C. Doyle, formerly a Canadian citizen now a fugitive from justice in the United States and Canada who has owed this money since those years, 27 years and 24 years ago, and whether there has been an appeal pending before the Supreme Court of Canada for the last seven years without any action by the government to pursue it? Will the minister bring us up to date on what action has been taken to rectify this situation of gross negligence at the best?


An hon. Member:: What about Hal Banks?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the allegations or the hypothesis contained in the question put by the hon. member or the remarks in his speech in the House the other day. I have reviewed the proceedings in these matters with my officials. They have been proceeding at a pace that the rules of the court allow, except in one case where adjournment was agreed to from the winter list of the Supreme Court of Canada to the spring list, which should result in that case being heard in the spring of this year. Briefly, the officers of my department are instructed, and have been for some time, to proceed with these matters as fast as the rules of the court allow.


John Carnell Crosbie: Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that the Supreme Court of Canada is lax in its hearing of cases involving taxes and that a seven year delay is normal and in accordance with the rules of the Supreme Court in collecting income tax? Surely the minister is not suggesting that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: No. Of course, the Supreme Court of Canada deals with its cases diligently and as fast as it possibly can. One of the cases to which the hon. member refers cannot, however, be heard for procedural reasons by the Supreme Court until a decision is rendered in an allied but different case by the Federal Court.


John Carnell Crosbie: Will the hon. gentleman inform the House as to how many income tax cases are still pending from the years 1950 and 1954?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I have given him notice. Is the hon. gentleman in a

May 4, 1977
Oral Questions
position now to tell the House anything about the current situation regarding Douglas Newby, the Canadian journalist who was lost last year in Angola while on an assignment for Paris Match?
that it cease to make available to Metro Toronto cine-clubs the film "The Country is Calm" which denounces the violence of the Chilean military junta? If so, how can he justify such an intervention?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: There is nothing new to report on that particular case except that there have been periodic inquiries and various other efforts undertaken. I do not have anything beyond what I believe is already known to the hon. member.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there was no such intervention. The institute in question, the Goethe Institute, is a private organization with no connection with our department whatsoever.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In view of the statement in a letter from Mr. Riley, the vice-consul of our embassy in Kinshasa, on June 16, 1976 with respect to Mr. Newby that:
There is a Cuban embassy in Kinshasa but they will not be in a position to be of any help to us
Would the minister say why this would be the case since Cuba was so prominent at that time in Angola and whether in fact there have been official representations made by the government of Canada to Cuba-which has been the beneficiary of much financing and foreign aid from us-as to why they are so unco-operative, if in fact that is the case?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think the hon. member would be aware that since the gentleman in question was involved in a country other than Cuba, namely Angola in this case, the normal forms of representation, and indeed the only ones that can be undertaken officially, are with the government of the country concerned. Therefore, there was no way in which we could make direct inquiries from the Cuban government, or indeed involve them directly in any way.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister again if he would not pursue this matter because, while Cuba may not have been officially involved, it is well known unofficially that they had some
12,000	troops and were responsible for the situation in which Mr. Newby was killed.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I appreciate the hon. member's comment, but I repeat the point that I think it would be quite inappropriate, and also non-productive, to talk to what is essentially a foreign government about the whereabouts of a Canadian citizen, or anyone else for that matter, in another country. Therefore, we have, to the best of our ability, exhausted all the avenues open to us. There may be some others that we might be able to initiate. I am not aware of them and if the hon. member has some ideas on it, I would be glad to hear them.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Talk to Cuba anyway.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY IF DEPARTMENT REQUESTED GOETHE INSTITUTE TO WITHDRAW FILM &quot;THE COUNTRY IS CALM&quot;
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can he tell the House whether it is true that his department made representations to the Goethe Institute in Toronto so

* *
*


BROILERS-REASON FOR BULK IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since broiler producers bitterly complain, first that prices are not very satisfactory and, second, that there are massive imports from the U.S.A., can the minister tell the House whether these imports were allowed as a result of discussions he had with the Minister of Agriculture who hold that they are necessary to provide good food for Canadians?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am unaware of the problem raised by the hon. member. However, I shall try to give him an answer tomorrow.

* *


DROUGHT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Although my question covers several departments and would ordinarily be directed to the Prime Minister, I am a little afraid this afternoon to direct a question to him for fear he blaspheme once more. I ask the minister this. I understand that his department is working with other departments with a view to bringing about some arrangements to meet the serious threat of drought conditions, particularly in the Palliser triangle and also in other parts of western Canada. Would he let the House know what is being done at present? Then I will ask him-if I have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker- in a subsequent question to particularize what is being done.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, precisely what the department has been doing over the past few weeks, even prior to that, is to work in close co-operation with provincial governments in the Prairies. More recently we have set up a working group
May 4, 1977

between departments here in Ottawa which is also working in full co-operation with the provincial governments. We will be proposing for cabinet consideration some time tomorrow a plan that, I suppose, will gain support, and we will offer it to the provincial governments in the Prairies in the hope that they will be able to face the situation when it is presented.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a very encouraging report. 1 would like to ask the minister one or two particular questions having regard to the potential national tragedy which is within the realm of possibility. I have seen these things happen over a period of 74 years since we went to western Canada. Will the minister say what is being done to provide new wells and larger storage facilities to cover fodder for the cattle which will remain in the drought areas and, second, is it within contemplation and consideration by the government to pay the freight to transport fodder supplies to the areas where supplies are needed or, where the drought is the heaviest, to transport cattle to greener pastures in other parts of the western provinces?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, all the matters and proposals that the hon. gentleman refers to have been under intensive consideration. What we will be proposing jointly with the provincial government is going to be along those lines. More than that, we would suggest that a deep well be put in place and we will also have a program that will check water areas. We have already discussed with the province the possibility of cattle herds being moved around to places where the grass is in better shape. We are prepared to join with the province in sharing the cost of many of these activities.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his explanation-thorough and complete. I would ask him whether the original plan suggested by the Minister of Agriculture, that he was going to pray for rain, has been departed from?


Mr. Goodale:: It is working. It is raining a little in Winnipeg today.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is responsible for national parks. Because of the severe drought conditions that exist in western Canada and the serious effect it is having on our cattle industry, is the government considering making grazing land in our national parks available on a temporary basis as was the practice several years ago?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have already taken steps to request an inventory of possible grazing land in the
Oral Questions
national parks from my officials. I am told that at the present time they do not believe there is a lot because circumstances have changed since the 1930's when parkland was used for that purpose. We are, however, putting together an inventory which might be helpful.


Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Unless there is rain in the next week or couple of weeks it will mean a drastic reduction in cattle herds in the west because of lack of grazing. When this inventory is taken, could we have an answer from the department within the next two weeks because the situation is very serious and becoming drastic?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to rush that work.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment which concerns the Beaufort Sea. The figures that have been thrown around the House range from one in 15,000 as risk and one in 300 as risk, although one year's drilling experience shows that out of two wells drilled, one has blown so the risk is therefore really one in two. The report of March 1977 that the minister referred to in previous answers contained information supplied almost totally by the two major operators in the Beaufort Sea, Imperial Oil and Dome Petroleum. Would the minister advise what his department has done to obtain objective information on spill risk outside of the two majors who have a large axe to grind in terms of getting renewal of the permit?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member is careful with the facts and he would not want to leave the impression that the report dealt only with statistics of blowouts in the northern area but in fact covered a good part of the world's drilling for oil and gas. I have had the other point which the hon. member makes, checked by my able parliamentary secretary. It is exactly because my officials felt that they wanted additional information and were questioning the authors of the report-I underline that this is a report which was commissioned and was not done by in-house people-that the report transmitted to me was delayed. It was felt it was somewhat incomplete. Obviously, the report has to be tested against the knowledge and expertise gained and accumulated in my department. I would want to have more than the information provided by one of the companies before I made a recommendation on something as important as this.

May 4, 1977
Oral Questions


POSSIBILITY OF DECISION ON DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: 
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the second part of my question dealt with the capacity to clean up. Does the minister intend to make a decision before he has determined whether his department or any other has the capacity to clean up an oil spill and before the equipment is available and in place?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, there is some knowledge and some capacity to clean up. 1 do not think the House would want to think we are starting from zero on this. The fact is we are not satisfied with some of the drilling activities that took place last year. My officials have recommended a good list of changes-20 of them if my memory is correct. I will be insisting that inspectors from my department be much more closely involved if the permit to drill this season is given. We are still working with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on a position paper which will be put to Cabinet.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering the unusual number of bankruptcies among textile companies in Canada and more particularly the layoff of over 200 employees in the textile industry in the constituency of Langelier, could the minister tell the House what steps he is considering to improve the situation, and when the

government is going to meet its commitments as far as textile imports in Canada are concerned?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has followed the debates in the House he will know that on November 29 last we announced a textile and clothing policy by which we were reducing imports to the 1975 levels. If he was in the House during the months of December and January, he could see that many hon. members from his own party blamed me because of these import quotas. Furthermore, I want to tell the hon. member that the policy has been underway since the month of November, and that its effects are already becoming noticeable. Some areas are a little weaker but we are very optimistic and with time we believe the situation will be corrected. I hope the hon. member is going to talk to his colleagues on this subject.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is not taking my question seriously. I shall refrain from putting a supplementary.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows nothing about the problem.


POLYSAR
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Twice last week the question of further press revelations about the Poly-sar controversy arose in the House and on both occasions government spokesmen, including the Prime Minister, merely indicated they were taking notice of the question. I gather a report has now been received from CDC officials. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what is in the report and when we can see it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have heard my colleague the Minister of Finance indicate to the House that he was going to have the matter looked into. He has received the report; I have not.


POSSIBILITY OF POLICE INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL REBATES
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Prime Minister along the same lines as the one directed to him last Thursday and stemming from the innuendos, rumours and other press revelations in regard to the Polysar matter and because CDC officials have been involved in this sorry mess from the beginning. Is the government considering asking the RCMP to investigate this matter, now that there is a serious question of contingent liability on the part of Polysar at the suit of Dutch officials?
May 4, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said in his question, this is largely a question of rumour and innuendo and I am not sure if the RCMP would be prepared to hunt down every rumour. But if the hon. member has any serious allegations to make I am sure the Solicitor General would be happy to transmit them to the RCMP.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As the company Bombardier-MLW obtained from the federal government guarantees and financial assistance for the manufacturing of locomotives to be delivered to Bangladesh and Pakistan, and of parts for the experimental trains involved in the American project Amtrack; and as Bombardier laid off 650 workers at its Montreal plant on April 7 last because it refuses to include in the collective agreement a provision ensuring the physical safety of plant employees, when at least 576 accidents occurred in those plants of which two were fatal, can the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tell the House whether he intends to revise the terms of that type of contract through which the federal government grants financial help in such a way that the companies which benefit from them are required to respect all the laws governing employer-employee relations and to recognize the employer's obligation to ensure the physical safety of its employees?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member recognizes that the federal government does a lot for the development of plants that are export oriented in Quebec. Naturally, I too am concerned about the safety of the workers, but the question of working conditions in Quebec plants falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. I trust the Quebec Minister of Labour will assume his responsibilities with regard to that labour conflict.


HOUSING
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Considering that the future member for Verdun, Mrs. Pierrette Lucas, is in the House today, that this riding has some common problems with my own riding of Hochelaga, and that
Oral Questions
the hon. minister did not answer the question I directed to him on April 19, as recorded on page 4760 of Hansard I will repeat my question because he assured me that he intended to second my efforts in the area of non profit corporations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver South.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, to whom I have given notice of my question. Yesterday the Mayor of Vancouver blasted the federal government for its delay in announcing a decision on a $6 million urban demonstration fund, most of which was earmarked for the city of Vancouver. Two important city projects are being delayed and are in danger. They are the farmers' market and fishermen's wharf, and the required renovations for the Kitsilano Pool, contract work on which was supposed to begin on May 1. Can the parliamentary secretary advise the House why there has been no decision made?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have received from the parliamentary secretary the notice he had taken from the hon. member. I can tell him that a decision in this regard will be taken very soon. A sum of money has already been allocated to a project in co-operation with the University of British Columbia for an audio-visual program after the Habitat Conference. Now, with regard to certain other demonstration projects, a decision will be taken very soon. The hon. member, like his colleague for Hochelaga, will surely agree with me that we are always happy to have visitors in the galleries. That does not necessarily mean that they will come and sit on the floor of the House.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the minister? Since the Mayor of Vancouver blamed the delay on the British Columbia caucus of the federal Liberal Party, because Liberal members cannot agree on how the moneys shall be allocated, can the minister confirm if the mayor's allegation is correct?
[ Translation]


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I have the feeling that the consultation line between the British Columbia Liberal caucus and the office of the minister concerned is a lot more direct and a lot more constant than with the Mayor of Vancouver. I do not know where he got his information, but it is totally erroneous.
5278

May 4, 1977
Oral Questions


POST OFFICE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that a member of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada named Andstein has been elected as the head of the Halifax local of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and that Mr. Andstein ran in 1974 as a member of the Communist party, a party which is dedicated to the destruction of Canada's political system and, if so, is the Prime Minister prepared to recommend to the union that people who advocate the violent overthrow of our democratic system should not be office holders in the postal workers' union?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know any of the facts alleged by the hon. member, including whether or not the person mentioned was elected in a regular fashion. I must remind the hon. member that there is no law against the holding of Communist views in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Some people even hold Liberal views.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the workers choose to elect such a person, I think the responsibility is on their heads and not on the hon. member's or on mine.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of Mr. Andstein's views would the Prime Minister consider establishing a system whereby government supervised elections for postal union leaders could be held by secret ballot, and whereby the result could only be determined by a majority of the union membership voting by secret ballot?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this kind of legislation exists in certain provinces and does not exist in certain others. I would not consider legislation which was directed at any one union, but the subject matter is worthy of consideration and I will look into it.


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State tell us the name of the new director of theatre for the National Arts Centre?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to tell the House that this afternoon M. Jean Gascon will be appointed as director of theatre activities of the National Arts Centre. He will be supported by Mr. John Wood, formerly of the Neptune Theatre, and M. Hebert who is at the moment directing French theatre activities at the National Arts Centre. I am sure that members of the House will join with me in welcoming the decision of this great artist
(Mr. Ouellct.]
and distinguished Canadian to undertake these responsibilities. This is another step toward the establishment of a great national theatre in Ottawa which will serve not only the Ottawa area but the regions of the country as well.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence, whom I advised before the beginning of the question period of my intention to raise this question. In view of certain allegations made by members of the minister's own department pertaining to changes having to be made in the communications security system as a result of top secret NATO documents having been made available to Communist Chinese officials, could the minister either confirm or deny the allegations? If he denies them, can he advise this House what effect if any these mishandled documents have had on the responsibilities of his department as they pertain to NATO security?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the documents in question were NATO documents handled through a subcontractor. There are no classified Canadian Armed Forces or Department of National Defence documents involved. So far as any change in the system is concerned that would have to be handled by the North Atlantic alliance and not by Canada, and any cost incurred in that regard would be borne by the NATO infrastructure program.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House if any such changes are being contemplated as a result of the mishandling of these documents?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give an indication one way or the other.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour may I direct my question to the acting Minister of Labour? It concerns the Radio-Mutuel strike in Quebec which has been going on since January. In January 81 per cent of the workers concerned voted for a union and in March, on a second vote, 61 per cent so voted. I ask the acting minister this: Why is the Canada Labour Relations Board denying the democratic rights of those workers to have a union by ordering a third vote on May 6. Is this not a dangerous precedent to set, and does it not go against the democratic principles of the Canada Labour Code?
May 4, 1977

[ Translation]


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first it should be specified that the employees at the five stations were on an illegal strike, because none of them were certified. Secondly, last week a vote was ordered in two of those stations. These votes will be held within three weeks and some decisions could be taken in that connection. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to intervene since the union members have decided not to negotiate as long as the five stations are not recognized. Now if one of the parties asks for that, the Department of Labour would intervene to assist them. However, nobody has asked our department to intervene and the unions do not want to negotiate as long as the five stations are not unionized and recognized by the CRTC.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the strike has nothing to do with whether or not they want to unionize.


COMMUNICATIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Communications.
The licence given to Radio-Mutuel states that every day local stations must give local news every half-hour, and since the beginning of the strike there have been only three bulletins daily at CJTR and none at CJRS. How is it that Radio-Mutuel still has its licence since it does not meet the terms stated on it?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, those matters are under the jurisdiction of the CRTC. If the CRTC, when broadcasting licences are renewed, believes that the owner of the licence did not, during the period for which it was granted, meet the terms attached to it, it decides whether or not the licence should be renewed. Accordingly, those matters are examined when licences are granted or renewed. I could refer the question to the CRTC, but as Minister of Communications, I am not in a position to give satisfaction to the hon. member as regards his question.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sorry the Prime Minister was required to leave the chamber shortly after three o'clock, because unfortunately it involves him.
I raise this matter with a heavy heart in as much as what I have to say relates to a statement made by the Prime Minister,
Oral Questions
the leader of our country and the principal member of the cabinet. During an exchange that took place between members of the New Democratic Party and the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister stopped his response in the course of his answer. I heard, and members on my side also heard distinctly the Prime Minister say, "Shut up, for Christ's sake".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In my estimation and submission, this constitutes not only unparliamentary language, of which we expect much better from the Prime Minister of our country, but it is an insult to this institution if these remarks remain on the record. I think we understand that the parry and thrust of parliamentary activity involves high spirits, some tension and sometimes involves people saying things in the heat of the moment. However, I suggest that blasphemy has absolutely no place in the House of Commons and is contrary to every tradition that we have in this place. I suggest that the Prime Minister be asked specifically to withdraw those words. I know he is not here, but I suggest that he should withdraw those words and apologize to the House for using them within parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If he is not prepared to do so, I suggest that my motion be acted upon and be put to the House. I, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre:
That the matter of the Prime Minister's unparliamentary language in this question period be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The action taken by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar will give all members of the House, including the Chair, the opportunity to reflect for a day on the events that took place. Perhaps after 24 hours we will see what, if any, events follow it. Some decision can then be made by the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I took it from the intent of the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar that it was his request that the Prime Minister be given an opportunity to consider his remarks and to apologize. I do not know of any other way I can deal with the matter. That is what I have been asked to do.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to direct a question to the government House leader in terms of government business. I do not know how long the
80012-55%

May 4, 1977
Oral Questions
government House leader and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration are going to test my patience. Has some sort of agreement been reached on that side with regard to bringing in a mini-bill in order to relieve the financial pressures that some
18,000	senior citizens are experiencing? How long is the government House leader going to test my patience? That is all I want to know.


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is looking at me with a smile and a blank face. I hope he heard my point of order. He knows that I want to co-operate with him. We always try to co-operate. Surely the government House leader can tell me whether a decision has been reached, a decision in the form of a bill, and that it is expected some time this week. They only have a couple of days. Surely the government House leader can allow me that kind of courtesy.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. member's question was how long I intended to test his patience. I did not really have a basis upon which to analyse that reply. However, with respect to the bill, I made it clear yesterday that the government intended to bring in the bill and that it was intended to be brought in as quickly as possible. If I can get the bill cleared today, it will go on the order paper immediately. The bill will come in. I hope I made that clear yesterday and I make it clear again today. I hope the hon. member's patience is restored.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday I put a question to the Minister of State for multiculturalism asking whether he had any plans to provide help for the department of education for the province of British Columbia so that they might have additional help to provide the teaching of English as a second language, especially in the Vancouver district. The minister replied, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, representations have been made from various areas other than Vancouver and British Columbia on this particular problem and we are studying it at the present time.
I rose to ask a supplementary question at that point because the minister's answer implied that he had had no representations from Vancouver or the province of British Columbia. I would, therefore, ask the Minister of State whether he has had any representations from Vancouver or British Columbia. If so, has he any concrete plans to help that department provide a fuller service in the teaching of English as a second language?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in order to be sure that I fully understand the question which the hon. member put to me yesterday, I would like him to be more specific, giving me details as to the area in British Columbia to which he is making reference, so that I can provide him with an appropriate answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock put a question. The minister gave an answer. It was the hon. member's impression that the minister's answer excluded

the area on which the hon. member was concentrating. I allowed the point of order today to clarify whose impression was correct as to the response given by the hon. minister. I was hoping the minister could clarify whether in his answer yesterday he was indicating whether representations had been received in addition to the ones he received, or were they in exclusion to the ones referred to by the hon. member. I think that is the difference that needs to be clarified.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer I gave the hon. member yesterday was correct. I now ask him to give me the details of the matter in question. If the hon. member's question is with regard to the other language and education within British Columbia, it would be more appropriate to refer his question to the Secretary of State.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue, I wish to table the report on the operations to March 31, 1977, of the office of the administrator of the Anti-Inflation Act.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-417, to encourage the growth of the reserve force of the Canadian forces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to encourage support for the reserve force of the Canadian forces by permitting federal public servants and employees of Crown corporations to take leave of absence of up to two months to serve with the reserve force of the Canadian forces, and encouraging similar leave in the private sector and the provincial public sectors as well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
May 4, 1977
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 875, 1,273, 1,519, 1,520, 1,813, 1,861, 1,904, 1,929, 1,931, 1,940, 2,047, 2,158, 2,164, 2,211, 2,216, 2,247, 2,248, 2,258, 2,261 and 2,263.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what percentage of CBC's budget was allocated to (a) technological improvement (b) programming expenses?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: *Percent-age of Budget
1976	1975	1974	1973	1972(a)	Capital expenditures	12	15	10	10	9(b)	Programming expenses	56	54	56	57	57
*Note: For the purpose of this question, (i) Budget is interpreted to mean the Corporation's total expenditures for operating and capital purposes, including depreciation and before deducting advertising revenues earned, but excluding amounts applicable to the 1976 Summer Olympics; (ii) Technological improvement is interpreted to mean the capital expenditures of the Corporation, the greatest percentage of which is in the area of extension of coverage; and (iii) Programming expenses is interpreted to mean the Corporation's cost of production of programs broadcast.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past ten years, what has been the capital cost of purchasing lock boxes for the post office?
2.	How many lock boxes are presently in use?
3.	How many of these lock boxes are used by members of the public that do not have the option of postal delivery?
4.	What is the revenue from lock boxes used by persons in regions where there is no postal delivery?
5.	What is the annual cost of all letter carriers to the Post Office Department?
6.	To how many householders, including business establishments and groups, does the post office make direct delivery?


Ralph Goodale: 1. In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: Capital cost of purchasing lock boxes for revenue post offices only. 1975-76, $807.58; 1974-75, $4,998.37; 1973-74, $3,195.98; 1972-73, $2,793.94; 1971-72, $4,059.54; 1970-71, $6,308.31; 1969-70, $4,912.23; 1968-69, $7,729.61; 1967-68, $9,074.30; 1966-67, $6,558.12. In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: In accordance with government retention schedule, records are available from 1970 to 1976. Therefore, the capital cost of purchasing lock boxes for the post office in each fiscal year from 1970/71 to 1975/76 is as follows:
Order Paper Questions
Year	Capital Cost
1970/71	$343,873.00
1971/72	376,905.00
1972/73	402,949.00
1973/74	584,533.25
1974/75	773,247.78
1975/76	776,228.13
2.	1975-76 Postmaster General's annual report shows 958,903 lock boxes in service as at end of fiscal year.
3 and 4. It is not possible to determine from headquarters revenue reporting records whether or not each lock box customer has postal delivery service.
5.	For fiscal year 1975-76, the cost of all letter carriers was $223,126,948.67 excluding building cost.
6.	Letter carrier delivery service is provided to 5,534,985 points of call.


Mr. Malone: Is the government aware of reports that the Canadian Wheat Board wishes to set up incentives for new grain terminal facilities at Canadian ports and, if so, is the money for such incentives to (a) come from general tax revenues (b) be deducted from the farmers' final payments (c) come from a combination of Parts (a) and (b) and, if so, in what ratio?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: The government is aware of the Canadian Wheat Board's incentive program to encourage construction of new grain terminal facilities at West Coast ports. Any money required for the program would come from the Board's pool accounts, as a deduction from final payment monies. Under the main provisions of the program, companies building terminal facilities at Canadian West Coast ports will be guaranteed storage payments on 90 to 100 per cent of their total licensed capacity less a minimum of 10 per cent which they must reserve for non-Board grains. The payments which will be set at the present storage rate, of one-thirtieth of a cent per bushel per day, will represent additional expenses to pool accounts only for that portion of storage capacity which goes unutilized. In other words to the extent that the storage capacity is fully utilized to store grain, the incentive program would not represent any additional expense to the board's pool accounts.


Mr. Malone: 1.	What was the cost of administering the Canadian Wheat Board in 1975-76?
2.	Is the cost arrived at by dividing the number of bushels of wheat that passes through the Canadian Wheat Board, or is it calculated on the basis of all grains and, if the latter, what is the ratio of charge per bushel for each of the various cereal grains?

May 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Hod. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport): 1. The cost of administering the Canadian Wheat Board for the 1975-76 pool period was $12,928,233.
2.	The cost of administration is arrived at by totalling all of the administrative expenses incurred by the Board for the pool period and allocating these costs proportionately to the four pool accounts as indicated in the Board's Annual Reports. For the 1975-76 pool accounts, the administrative and general expenses charged per bushel for each of the grains were: wheat 1.85 cents, oats 1.73 cents, barley 1.79 cents and designated barley 1.79 cents.


Mr. Crosbie: Has the government received a request from Newfoundland requesting the use of expropriation powers under section 92(10)(a) of the BNA Act or otherwise so that Newfoundland can construct an interprovincial transmission line across the Province of Quebec whether or not the Province of Quebec consents in order to deliver energy to customers in Ontario or the Maritime Provinces, or otherwise and, if so (a) on what date was the request received (b) what reply has the government given or will give?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources, Environment, Finance, Justice and Public Works, the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Federal-Provincial Relations Office as follows: no.


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many Canadian diplomatic passports are in current use?
2.	How many of these are in the possession of diplomats on current assignments?
3.	Do Canadian diplomatic passports carry a cut-off date after which they are no longer valid?
4.	Do Canadian diplomatic passports convey the privilege of (a) customs-free travel abroad (b) diplomatic discounts on certain luxury goods (c) access to taxpayer-subsidized commissaries and medical clinics overseas?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. At January 1, 1977 there were 4,389 valid Canadian diplomatic passports in current use.
2.	Approximately 2,125. The balance are in the custody of the Passport Office.
3.	Canadian diplomatic passports have a maximum life of five years but are returned to the Passport Office for safekeeping when the purpose for which they were issued is terminated.
4.	No. Canadian diplomatic passports do not per se convey any privilege to its bearer although it establishes prima facie a presumption that the bearer is a diplomatic officer of Canada in a given country or in transit. Privileges may be extended to a Canadian diplomatic agent by the foreign state upon recognition of the individual's diplomatic status.
(Mr. Malone.]


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	Has the required one year's notice been given to the United States government under the Canada-US Bilateral Air Agreement relative to the provision of custom pre-clearance facilities at the International Airports of Edmonton and Calgary and, if so (a) on what date (b) what would be a realistic date for the inauguration of such services?
2.	What are the estimated related costs of a capital nature at each Airport to provide satisfactory customs facilities for the next 15 to 20 years?
3.	Are any such expenditures foreseen or provided for in the estimates for the fiscal year 1977-78 and, if not, for what reason?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes. (a) March 4, 1976, by Memorandum of Consultation between Canada and the U.S.A. (b) Calgary October 1977; Edmonton Fall of 1978 (earliest).
2.	Calgary $4.9 million; Edmonton $1.4 million, for provision of facilities to 1985. Beyond that, forecast needs become unclear.
3.	A maximum of $3.5 million has been committed for the improvement of the Edmonton terminal facilities in 1977/78. Of this amount, only the cost of designing the facilities will be spent specifically for preclearance in 1977/78. In the case of Calgary, the overall new terminal building spending schedule is part of the Transport's 1977/78 budget. The approximate value of preclearance related costs is $1.0 million.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government aware of reports that linoil, produced in Canada from Canadian grains, can be substituted for the petroleum used in some oils and paints and, if so, is the government considering giving aid to the establishment of a linoil crushing industry in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as the
Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: The government is aware that linoil can be substituted for petroleum used in some oils and paints. There are two linoil crushing plants in Canada, one in the prairies and one in Eastern Canada. Neither is operating at capacity. While the government has a number of incentive programs which could assist firms wishing to establish a linoil crushing plant, at the present time no applications for assistance for this purpose are under consideration.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government giving consideration to encouraging the manufacture and use of vegetable oil based paints and, if so, what steps is it taking to encourage the use of Canadian flax and other grains in their manufacture?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as the
Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: The government is interested in the development of new uses and thus expanded markets for all vegetable oils produced in Canada and has a
May 4, 1977

number of programs which provide incentives to industry to develop new uses for these products.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With regard to the answer to part 2 (c) of Question No. 1,145 (a) what specific private port facilities along the river benefit from government icebreaking services (b) what is the government's best estimate of the tonnage of cargo handled at these facilities during January, February and March of (i) 1974-75 (ii) 1975-76 (c) during (i) 1974-75 (ii) 1975-76, what specific ports on the North Shore were in fact broken out by government icebreakers?
2.	Of the cargo handled at each of the Ports of Montreal, Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres, Sorel during January, February and March of (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76, how much was (i) general cargo (non-containerized) (ii) general cargo (containerized) (iii) bulk cargo?


Otto Emil Lang: Transport Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) Private facilities located between Montreal and the Strait of Belle Isle that benefit from government icebreaking services are: Baie-Comeau and Port-Cartier. (b)(i) 1974-75-January, February, March; Baie-Comeau: 219,695 tons; Port-Cartier: 1,348,430 tons, (ii) 1975-76-January, February, March; Baie-Comeau: 195,024 tons; Port-Cartier: 1,306,481 tons. (c)(i) Baie-Comeau, Godbout, Port-Cartier, Sept-Iles, Riviere-au-Tonnerre, Mingan, Havre-St-Pierre, Harrington, St-Augustin, Old Fort Bay, Blanc-Sablon; (ii) Baie-Comeau, Godbout, Port-Cartier, Sept-Iles, Riviere-au-Tonnerre, Mingan, Havre-St-Pierre, Harrington, St-Augustin, Old Fort Bay, Blanc-Sablon.
2.	(Sorel only): (a)(i) 1,237 tons; (ii) not applicable; (iii) 4,562 tons. (b)(i) Cars-70 units: railway ties 131,200 units; (ii) not applicable; (iii) 13,950 tons.
The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. See answer to 1 above.
Port of Montreal
		Cargo Tonnage	Handled	
		General Cargo	Containerized	
(Non-containerized)	Cargo	Bulk Cargo1974	January	105,756	97,295	230,887February	86,222	125,612	224,566March	95,804	124,053	176,8841975	January	111,334	97,631	653,532February	76,507	122,622	360,650March	119,855	130,082	463,1361976	January	42,558	61.188	327,190February	61,467	119,126	278,072March	93,140	114,184	419,803Port of Quebec	Cargo Tonnage	Handled	General Cargo	Containerized	(Non-containerized)	Cargo	Bulk Cargo1974	January	13,173	71,414	669,467February	28,073	64,797	616,399March	10,185	83,940	283,0081975	January	15,624	44,307	466,439February	10,652	66,906	513,139March	11,571	45,148	450,1621976	January	1,288	52,740	618,167February	3,897	43,496	522,183March	10,360	73,030	779,938
Order Paper Questions
Port of Trois-Rivieres Cargo Tonnage Handled
		General Cargo	Containerized	
(Non-containerized)	Cargo	Bulk Cargo1974	January	18,091	278	19,426February	16,490	276	16,541March	20,659	-	7,0421975	January	16,871	-	116,369February	16,085	-	18,316March	24,390	-	84,2241976	January	10,622	-	54,059February	10,684	-	89,690March	8,417	-	18,973


Mr. Schellenberger: During the 1975-76 fiscal year, what was (a) the total amount (b) the amount, by province, granted to the provincial milk marketing boards or agencies or to milk processors in relation to consumer subsidies for fresh fluid milk or powdered milk under agreements between the government and the provincial governments or milk processors and of these, what amounts were granted for (i) fresh milk (ii) powdered milk?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: (a) $14,452,893.21; (b) (i) Newfoundland, $312.00; Ontario, $15,153.69; Total, $15,465.69. (ii) Quebec, $5,016,138.80; Ontario, $7,386,106.79; Manitoba, $82,957.92; Saskatchewan, $19,456.50; Alberta, $88,101.47; British Columbia, $1,844,666.04; Total, $14,437,427.52.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to inspect goods held in bond?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: (a)
General Records Disposal Schedules of the Government of Canada require that records be retained for a five-year period only. Therefore, information is not available, (b) 394.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to assess and collect delinquent taxes?


Hon.   Monique@: (a)
General Records Disposal Schedules of the Government of Canada require that records be retained for a five-year period only. Therefore, information is not available, (b) 8,708.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a recent decision made that all persons acting as collectors for Unemployment Insurance Commission overpayments in the Ontario Region who

May 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
have been working out of District Offices would have their facilities moved to Toronto and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what is the name and job designation of the highest official involved in the decision (c) what is the estimated cost of such reorganization?
2.	Does the government anticipate that the collection of overpayments will improve when made from a distance rather than on the spot through each district office and, if so, in what way?
3.	Has this same centralization been announced for other U1C regions and, if so, what is the total estimated cost for (a) each region (b) all regions?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	No. The intention is to centralize the repayment function into three locations Toronto, Belleville and London, (a) To permit a greater degree of specialization; to provide repayment staff with an improved path for career progression; to generally increase the effectiveness of the repayment activity; to provide opportunity for greater co-ordination with the legal system; to provide opportunities for economies of scale, (b) Director General (Ontario), (c) In the initial stages the reorganization will not result in any increase in cost. The end result should be a decrease in the cost of operation.
2.	Yes. The effectiveness and efficiency of the overpayment collection operation will improve as a result of the action outlined in the response to question 1. This is based on studies conducted in the past, and the actual operating results achieved in other areas where this type of collection operation has been in effect for three years. These studies indicated lower operating costs and improved control of accounts resulted from a centralized repayment function.
3.	No. A centralized type of organization has been in existence in three other regions for some time. Results in these regions indicate that the shift to a centralized mode has saved the Commission money in each instance.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Mullally hired as a Special Assistant to the Minister without Portfolio on December 6, 1976 and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what qualifications did he possess for the service to be performed and what were the services?
2.	What part, if any, did the Prime Minister or anyone acting on his behalf play in the making of this appointment and did the Prime Minister or any such person discuss the matter with the Minister and, if so, on what dates, etc.?
3.	Was Mrs. Mary Alice Mullally engaged as Chief Co-ordinator at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive on November 25, 1976 and, if so, did she have anything to do with the appointment of Mr. Mullally to the Minister's Office eleven days later?
4.	Was Mr. Mullally's employment in the Minister's Office terminated on March 15, 1977 and, if so (a) for what reason (b) was this on his own initiative (c) was there any connection between Mr. Mullally ceasing his duties and the placing of a question on the Order Paper by the honourable Member for Leeds on this matter on March 8,1977?
5.	Will Mr. Mullally be appointed to a position in the Public Service and, if so (a) what position (b) on what date (c) at what salary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1, 2 and 3. See
reply to question 2,063 answered March 22, 1977 and Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citations 171 (c) and (d).

4.	(a) and (b) Prior to appointment by the Minister, it was understood by both parties that the period of employment would be for approximately three months, (c) Absolutely none-see 4(a) and (b).
5.	Unknown.


Mr. Wenman: As of December 31, 1976, how many unemployed persons registered with Canada Manpower in British Columbia, came under the occupational group (a) managerial, administrative (b) natural sciences, engineering and mathematics (c) social sciences and related (d) religion (e) teaching (f) medicine and health (g) artistic, literary, performing arts (h) sport and recreation (i) clerical (j) sales (k) service (1) farming, horticultural and animal husbandry (m) fishing, hunting, trapping (n) forestry and logging (o) mining and quarrying including gas and oil (p) processing (q) machining (r) fabricating, assembling and repairing (s) construction (t) transport equipment operating (u) material-handling (v) other crafts and equipment operating (w) others?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As of December 31, 1976, the number of unemployed persons registered with Canada Manpower in the Province of British Columbia was as follows: (a) managerial, administrative and related, 2,127*; (b) natural sciences, engineering and mathematics, 2,780; (c) social sciences and related, 1,710; (d) religion, 3; (e) teaching and related, 1,683*; (f) medicine and health, 3,204; (g) artistic, literary, performing arts and related, 1,041*; (h) sport and recreation, 231; (i) clerical and related, 21,947*; (j) sales, 8,505; (k) service, 16,477; (1) farming, horticultural and animal husbandry, 3,360; (m) fishing, hunting, trapping and related, 741*; (n) forestry and logging, 4,225; (o) mining and quarrying including oil and gas fields, 640*; (p) processing occupations, 7,447*; (q) machining and related, 2,461*; (r) product fabricating, assembling and repairing, 8,064*; (s) construction trades, 17,041*; (t) transport equipment operating, 4,714; (u) material-handling and related, not elsewhere classified, 3,924*; (v) other crafts and equipment operating, 999; (w) occupations not elsewhere classified, 3,556*.
Note: Occupations denoted by an (*) are worded as per the Report of Registered Clients and Vacancies (MAN 757) which was used as the source of information contained in the table on page 1. The figures in these cases are not reported as per the exact wording of the honourable member's question.


Mr. Wenman: 1. For 1976, how many persons were granted landed immigrant status as (a) independent (b) sponsored (c) nominated who listed British Columbia as their destination and came under the intended occupational group (i) managerial, administrative (ii) natural sciences, engineering and mathematics (iii) social sciences and related (iv) religion (v) teaching (vi) medicine and health (vii) artistic, literary, performing arts (viii) sport and recreation (ix) clerical (x) sales (xi) service (xii) farming, horticultural and animal-husbandry (xiii) fishing, hunting, trapping (xiv) forestry and logging (xv) mining and quarrying including gas and oil (xvi) processing (xvii) machining (xviii) fabricating, assembling and
May 4, 1977

repairing (xix) construction (xx) transport equipment operating (xxi) materialhandling (xxii) other crafts and equipment operating (xxiii) others?
2. What was the total number of all such persons?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.
(a)	independent (b)	sponsored (c)	nominated(i)	681	92	177(ii)	298	106	154(iii)	43	34	16(iv)	63	6	2(v)	149	115	37(vi)	259	131	121(vii)	67	66	33(viii)	11	4	3(ix)	tn	430	689(x)	_74	135	198(xi)	197	187	280(xii)	37	81	75(xiii)	T	4	1(xiv)	3	4	4(XV)	26	4	3(xvi)	23	53	52(xvii)	45	44	111(xviii)	224	193	424(xix)	104	135	239(XX)	14	45	43(xxi)	0	9	13(xxii)	9	16	24(xxiii)	21	308	88
2. Seven thousand five hundred sixty-one.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the present approximate percentage of all Canadian energy used (including fossil fuels, hydro and renewables such as sewer gas, wood, garbage, etc.) obtained from existing nuclear generators?
2.	What is the present percentage of all Canadian energy used obtained from existing renewable biomass?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. See reply to Question No. 2,030 which was answered in the House of Commons on March 31, 1977.
2. Considerably less than 1 per cent.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Was the $3.9 million loan agreement of October 6, 1972 between the Department of Supply and Services, CAE Aircraft Limited and CAE Industries Ltd. entered into on an interest free basis and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Was the contract terminated "for convenience" by the Customer government and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Is the contractor claiming for all costs incurred and, if so, on what legal grounds?
4.	Was a legal opinion received by the Canadian Commercial Corporation or the Customer government for terminating the contract?
Motion for Papers
5.	Did the Minister state that "the contractor is claiming for all costs incurred" and, if so, what is the potential liability which may have to be incurred by CCC or Customer government?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: In light of the fact that the various matters referred to in the questions are directly or indirectly involved in lawsuits pending against the government in the courts it would not be proper to comment thereon.


Mr. Herbert: Was a grant made by the Canada Council to Pierre Bourgault and, if so (a) in what amount (b) for what purpose?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: Under the Council's aid to translation program, the publishing house Les Editions du Jour was awarded $11,250 in 1975 to have Pierre Berton's The Last Spike translated by Mr. Bourgault.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Would you be good enough to call notice of motion No. 73 for the production of papers?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 73-Mr. Benjamin:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the critic on Canadian Transport Commission costing completed by R. L. Banks and Associates as PHASE 1 of the Costing Studies for the Rail Passenger Project of Transport Canada.
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Phase I of the Costing Studies for the Rail Passenger Project, mentioned in notice of motion No. 73, has not been completed. When the papers on the cost of the project are ready, they will be tabled in the House. No date has yet been set for the handing over of the final reports. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my hon. friend, I ask leave to withdraw it subject to his right to put it on the order paper again at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn. Shall the remaining notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
5286
James Bay Agreement



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
May 4, 1977

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 28, consideration of Bill C-9 to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the government of Quebec, la Societe d'energie de la Baie James, la Societe de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-electrique de Quebec, and the government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the government of Canada is a party, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on motion No. 2 in amendment to Bill C-9. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


William Warren Allmand: that Bill C-9, to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the government of Quebec, La Societe d'energie de la Baie James, La Societe de developpement de la Baie James, La Commission hydro-electrique de Quebec and the government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the government of Canada is a party, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you missed the fact that the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) wanted to speak on third reading. While I have the floor, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is back in the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.

May 4, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is asking that the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) be given an opportunity to speak on the motion. The motion that is put after the conclusion of the deliberations on report stage amendments is not debatable. I am referring to the motion for concurrence. A motion for third reading of the bill is debatable. A motion for third reading cannot be put at this time without leave of the House. I asked, "When shall the bill be read the third time?" Is it the disposition of the House to give the bill third reading? If so, I will put the motion. When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


William Warren Allmand: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the Prime Minister leaves the House, which he is in the process of doing, I think he would want to have an opportunity-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Clark:: This is absolute contempt of the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: By leaving the House the Prime Minister has shown absolute disregard for this institution of parliament and for his colleagues by refusing to withdraw his blasphemous statement. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), that this House do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar will realize that in order to put any kind of motion he must properly have the floor. He rose on a point of order which has not been recognized as such. Earlier he raised the point of order dealing with some remarks made by the Prime Minister. The Chair made a disposition in respect of his request which was made at an earlier time today. Part of that disposition by the Chair was an anxiety on my part to verify through the Hansard report what was said and to give the House the benefit of some adjudication as to what the result would be after the remarks had been verified.
When the point of order was made earlier, the verification had not been made, and it cannot be made until such time as Hansard is compiled and I have had an opportunity to examine it.
The hon. member will realize, as well, that a motion to adjourn the House is always in order provided the hon. member who wishes to put the motion has the floor validly within the terms of our proceedings. I have given the floor, under the motion, to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. It is entirely possible that another hon. member can gain the floor during the course of the debate and put foward whatever motion is in order at the time, but I am not of the view that the
James Bay Agreement
hon. member can simply rise in his place on a point of order and put a motion, when in order to put a motion he must have the floor on a valid basis.
The motion is on third reading of Bill C-9, and the hon. member for Lambton-Kent has the floor.


Mr. Holmes:: Initially I intended to rise on a point of order. I should like to do so, if I may, Mr. Speaker. There was consultation earlier this afternoon and it was understood that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Penner) would be given the opportunity to lead off the debate on third reading. I have no objection to that provided I do not lose my opportunity to speak later on third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Let me clarify the matter. Initially when the hon. member for Lambton-Kent was on his feet-I assumed that it was for the purpose of participating in the third reading debate, and the third reading motion had not then been put. If the House now agrees to hear the parliamentary secretary on third reading, followed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, it would seem to be a sensible course to follow.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill C-9 be now read the third time and do pass? The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Penner).


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by thanking the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) for his courtesy in allowing me to speak first on Bill C-9 at this stage of the proceedings. The courtesy displayed by the hon. member this afternoon is typical of the atmosphere which prevailed through the long and very detailed hearings we had at the committee stage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 which is now before the House for third reading is the result of 5 Vi years of discussions and negotiations among the Crees and the Inuit of northern Quebec, the federal government and the provincial government of Quebec. It has been a long journey. But what was happening during those years was far more than the seeking of a concession here, or a gain there which the word "negotiation" often implies. It was nothing less that an attempt to fit together, in a new and lasting way, two different cultures and lifestyles, two different sets of priorities, and to fit them together in a way that would accommodate both groups in the pursuit of their own interests without infringing on the basic rights and responsibilities of each. This was no small undertaking, it was no easy task, and I believe that the success attained represents a monumental achievement.
It was Quebec's intention to develop the hydroelectric potential of the James Bay region that precipitated the negotiations which would lead to the James Bay and Northern Quebec
80012 -56Vi


COMMON'S DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
May 4, 1977
James Bay Agreement
Agreement. Prior to that time, the government of Canada, the government of Quebec, and the Indians of Quebec Association, had formed a tripartite committee-that was in 1969-to deal with general problems related to harvesting and other questions of concern to the native population. But with the announcement of the proposed hydroelectric project, the Cree people living in the area became aware of the urgency of a settlement of their claims and reacted by asking the federal government to ensure that such settlement was reached before the project was allowed to develop further.
Indeed, both the provincial and federal governments had certain obligations with respect to the settlement of native claims in the territory where the projects would be located. The terms of the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912, which transferred the area north of the Eastmain River from the Northwest Territories to Quebec jurisdiction provided that the province would recognize native rights in that area and pay compensation for the surrender of such rights in the same manner as the government of Canada had previously done in other areas. With the federal government lay the broader responsibility for Indian and Inuit people, as expressed in the BNA Act and subsequent legislation, including the Indian Act.
By virtue of this responsibility, the federal government made repeated attempts to convince the province of the necessity of a negotiated settlement and to regenerate tripartite discussions. The federal government also provided funds to the Crees, through the Indians of Quebec Association, to assist them in informing their people of the proposed development and in conducting research on their claim. In 1972, when the natives felt negotiations with Quebec were not progressing favourably, they decided to launch a court action in an attempt to halt the project. The federal government, in an effort to bring the province to the negotiating table, provided the Crees and Inuit with financial assistance.
While the parties awaited the judgment of Justice Albert Malouf on the natives' request for an interlocutory injunction to stop the project, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand), continued to urge the province to resume negotiations and suggested a number of components for a possible settlement, which were included in Premier Bourassa's offer of January 25, 1974, and ultimately became the basis of the agreement in principle signed on November 15, 1974.
I firmly believe, now that Bill C-9 is before us for third reading, that the agreement that will be put into effect by this legislation is worthy of the efforts that were made by all parties involved to reach an accommodation and to produce a lasting settlement. What the agreement does is to acknowledge the traditional use and occupancy of the land by the Crees and Inuit of northern Quebec, and to provide, in place of general, unspecified interest in the land-which had never been sanctioned or protected by treaties or laws in that territory- concrete, well-defined rights and benefits to be given legal status by the passage of Bill C-9.
In its 1973 policy statement on native claims, the federal government formally recognized the existence of a native
[Mr. Pcnner.)
usufructuary interest in areas of Canada where it had not been extinguished by treaty or superseded by law-and that included the area of northern Quebec covered by the Boundaries Extension Acts of 1898 and 1912. In making that statement, the government clearly acknowledged its willingness to negotiate with Indian and Inuit representatives an agreed form of compensation on the basis of the loss of that interest. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is the first comprehensive claim settlement resulting from negotiations based on this policy.
During the many months of discussions and negotiations of the James Bay claim, the federal government recognized that the concern of the native people in the area was not primarily for obtaining monetary compensation but, rather, for preserving their traditional culture and gaining an effective voice in controlling matters affecting their daily lives in the territory. The wish of the federal government was to see the provision of nothing less than a new economic, social and cultural framework for the native people of the territory which would strengthen their position in contemporary society and at the same time enable them to set their own goals and to reach those goals in their own way and their own time. The concern of the government here today is to see the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which provides that framework, enshrined in legislation enacted by this parliament and given the finality and binding force of law.
What the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has done, in short, is to meet the expressed needs of the Crees and Inuit of the territory with respect to the usage and occupancy of lands, special hunting, fishing and trapping arrangements, health and social services, education, the administration of justice, economic development opportunities, protection of the environment, and local and regional autonomy.
Mr. Woolliams:: There is not much left.
Mr. Pennen The hon. member says there is not much left. He is absolutely correct. This agreement is very comprehensive. It has looked at every area of concern and interest to the Crees and Inuit and covered them all very comprehensively. I thank the hon. member for his interjection.
The agreement will result in greater control by the native people of their own affairs and increased native participation in all aspects of the administration of the territory, thereby reducing their dependence on government and making a positive move away from the paternalism of the past. In years gone by the federal government has frequently been criticized in this regard. This increased native autonomy should not be interpreted as an attempt on the part of the federal government to abrogate its responsibilities for native people. In addition to the specific rights and benefits outlined in the agreement, Bill C-9 ensures that the native people in the territory will continue to enjoy the rights and benefits resulting from the Indian Act where applicable and from such special legislation as may flow from the agreement at a future date. The Cree and Inuit will also continue to benefit from general federal and provincial programs applicable to Indians and
May 4, 1977

Inuit in Canada and in Quebec. They will, of course, continue to enjoy the same rights as other Canadian citizens. That goes without saying.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is that it was designed in such a way as to allow for accommodation. It represents an honest attempt by all signatory parties to accommodate particular needs and fulfil particular obligations in a manner satisfactory to all concerned. It is regarded by the participants as a good settlement, not as a model for others, for which it is not meant, but one to be defended in terms of the mutual satisfaction and benefits it brings to those who signed it.
In signing the agreement, the native people have agreed to the surrender of their claims in the territory, and also to the continuation of the James Bay hydroelectric project, in consideration of the benefits they will receive under the agreement. Quebec, for its part, has made certain modifications to its original plans for the hydro project as a result of the natives' concerns and will also undertake remedial measures to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, damages to the natives' way of life resulting from the project.
Numerous other examples of accommodation can be found in every section of the agreement. Arrangements have been worked out for land use in the territory, with defined categories of land to be established for the native people, and special provisions for non-native purposes. In recognition of the expressed needs of the Cree people, the federal government has agreed to give them local by-law powers more extensive than those accorded to bands under the Indian Act. The Province, for its part, will incorporate all the Cree and Inuit communities as municipalities under Quebec law, and has agreed to make arrangements for increased native participation in the administration of the territory. This will be done, for example, by creating new structures for the administration of Cree and Inuit health and education. In other areas, such as policing and judicial administration, existing provincial structures and programs will be adapted to make room for native participation and to take into account the unique concerns of the Cree and Inuit people. Under the agreement, both governments have agreed to Cree and Inuit involvement in the processes for environmental and social protection and in the management of the hunting, fishing and trapping regime in the territory.
Quebec is also offering added incentives to those natives who wish to pursue their traditional way of life, in the form of a guaranteed annual income program for Cree hunters and trappers and an income support program for disadvantaged Inuit. The federal and provincial governments have also undertaken, within the scope of existing programs, to provide training and other assistance for economic development, which will be consistent with the special needs of the Cree and Inuit. In addition, the natives will be given the opportunity to obtain jobs within the government service and on government development projects in the territory.
James Bay Agreement
From the examples I have given, it is clear that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is the result of significant compromises and adaptation by all parties involved. But the agreement does not stop there. It has opened the door for other native people in Quebec and elsewhere who are not entitled to benefit from its provisions but who may have claims in the territory. It assures them of a chance to obtain certain rights and benefits which otherwise they might not have had.
Under paragraph 2.14 of the agreement, Quebec has undertaken to negotiate with other Indians and Inuit concerning any claims they may be able to establish with respect to the territory. Questions were asked during the debate on second reading and throughout the standing committee hearings with respect to other native groups not parties to the agreement whose interests in the territory will be extinguished by Bill C-9. I should like to reiterate that in the view of the federal government, paragraph 2.14 protects non-signatory natives who can establish valid claims to land in the territory. It constitutes a legal and contractual obligation which the province has stated it fully intends to honour.
In his inaugural address before the National Assembly on March 8, Premier Levesque confirmed this very intention. Quebec's participation in the negotiations with the Naskapis of Schefferville, which are now nearing completion, is a concrete example of its willingness to negotiate, pursuant to paragraph 2.14, with natives not party to the agreement.
In conclusion, I reiterate the firm belief of the federal government that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement represents a major development in the relationship between governments and the native people concerned. I am convinced that it is a good agreement, for it is the result of long and careful negotiations which were aimed at reaching a settlement that would truly meet the special needs of the Cree and Inuit in northern Quebec. In their testimony before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the native parties to the agreement made it quite clear that they, too, feel the agreement is a good one.
But this agreement will come into effect officially only upon proclamation of the federal and provincial legislation approving it. Until the adoption of Bill C-9, the provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement cannot be fully implemented and the Cree and Inuit cannot enjoy the full benefits to which they are entitled as a result of this agreement. It is understandable, therefore, that the native parties are anxious to see Bill C-9 adopted. I recommend, therefore, that Bill C-9 receive third reading as soon as possible.


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-9 which has been before the House and the standing committee for some time. At the outset, let me refer to the Naskapis of Schefferville. As I said in the House when this bill was debated last week at the report stage, the Naskapis and their legal counsel were concerned about the terms under which this matter was to be debated at third reading. The minister made a commitment, if they were not happy with the terms under which this matter was to proceed to third reading, to defer third reading for at least a month. I

May 4, 1977
James Bay Agreement
am satisfied that the Naskapis and their legal counsel are pleased to see this matter being debated today on third reading.
While on the subject of the Naskapis, I should mention that we on this side of the House feel that we can take much credit for what has come out of the negotiations with the Naskapis at Schefferville. I suggest that the same can be said of problems which arose at Port Burwell and other issues relating to Indian, Metis and native individuals within and outside the territory involved.
I shall emphasize today, as I said during the second reading debate, during standing committee hearings and during the report stage debate, that the major issue confronting us is the extinguishment of third parties, or non-signatories to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Although I have had personal reservations about the James Bay agreement, which I have read and reread, I want to say that at all times I have respected the position of the Grand Council of the Cree and their chief, Billy Diamond. I respected the chief as well as the position of the president of the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, Charlie Watt.
At no time did I feel parochial or paternalistic in terms of the content of the agreement. 1 want to remind all members of this House that that was not the issue. The issue was not the content of the agreement. The issue was the unilateral extinguishment of the rights of native people, whether they be Indian, Inuit or Metis, in that area who may or may not have rights. That was the particular issue before the House and the standing committee. Let me attempt to put it very simply, because it is most important that all members understand precisely what we are dealing with. Where is the justice in a government saying to a group of Indians, "We recognize that you have certain rights, which we will extinguish for other rights?"-rights that will appear in this agreement-and saying to another group of Indians or Inuit in the area, "You may or may not have rights, but it does not really matter because we plan on extinguishment unilaterally". That was the major contention throughout this entire debate.
As I have indicated, I had some reservations about the agreement. One of the fears that I expressed during second reading debate concerned the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. I raised that matter because I was interested in a television news broadcast last night in which the chief of the Grand Council of the Cree, Billy Diamond, raised fears with regard to the introduction of Bill 1 in the province of Quebec. It is my understanding-I think the parliamentary secretary referred to this fact-that they have asked for a delay in the proclamation of that bill in the hope that this particular aspect of the agreement can be worked out.
As I have indicated, I did not during the standing committee meetings deal in depth with the agreement, although I had read it on many occasions. I think it is important to refer to the particular clause. Under the Cree education act, section 16.0.10 states specifically:

The teaching languages shall be Cree and with respect to the other languages in accordance with the present practice in the Cree communities in the territory. The Cree School Board will pursue as an objective the use of French as a language of instruction so that pupils graduating from its schools will, in the future, be capable of continuing their studies in a French school, college or university elsewhere in Quebec, if they so desire.
After consultation with the parents' committee, and having regard to the requirements of subsequent education, the commissioners shall determine the rate of introduction of French and English as teaching languages.
I do not pretend to be a constitutional expert, but it is certainly the view of the Grand Council of the Cree-indeed, Charlie Watt of the Northern Quebec Inuit Association made reference to it-that we may well see the erosion of the agreement. I referred to this matter during the second reading debate, and I want to make reference to that particular section. In Hansard for December 7, 1976, at page 1760 I am reported as having said:
On November 6, 1975, an article appeared in the Montreal Gazette describing certain features of the agreement. In that article the MNA for Mount Royal, John Ciacca, who served as the provincial government negotiator, stated:
In effect the agreement will have precedence over the federal Indian Act...
It is our end to create a new concept within the framework of a Quebec lawthe establishment of a community lived in either by Cree or Inuit of their own
choice but also accessible to the rest of the population.
As I indicated at that time, that was certainly my understanding of the agreement, an entirely new concept with respect to constitutional responsibility. There was nor question throughout the testimony that that particular section 16.0.10 was of extreme importance to the Cree as, indeed, were other sections. It is incumbent upon this government and this minister that that section should be defended. There is no question about that. It is important to recall the major arguments throughout the standing committee meetings. They really revolve around sections 2.6 and 2.14. As I have indicated, that was repeated throughout the testimony.
There are several areas I could refer to with regard to section 2.14. I want to make reference to the meeting that was held on Tuesday, March 8, 1977. It clearly defines the issue as we on this side of the House saw it. At page 21:34 of issue No. 21 for Tuesday, March 8, 1977, the testimony is as follows. I asked the following question:
Well, now that we have legal counsel here, let me put a question to him, through you, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
How comfortable would legal counsel be, if they were in the position of a third party who may or may not have third rights, when you are confronted with a bill that extensively extinguishes the rights of third parties or non-signatories to the agreement? What leverage do you have as a third party to negotiate when your rights are extinguished before you start?
The witness from the Department of Justice responded:
Well, I would say that all that this third party can do would be to rely on the good faith of the Quebec government that undertook to negotiate, presumably in good faith, with anybody who has a claim. And that is all the person can do.
I then said:
A moral obligation but no legal obligation.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) interrupted at that point and said:
Oh no, there is a legal obligation to negotiate but no legal obligation to settle.
May 4, 1977

That is the crux of the problem that was before the committee. In a sense, they were saying there was a moral obligation but no legal obligation. I say that that legal obligation was extinguished by section 3(3) of the bill that was before us and which we were trying to correct by the amendment which was defeated earlier this afternoon. When I spoke on second reading, I indicated that this was a key issue. I refer again to that debate, and specifically to page 1764 of Hansard for December 7, 1976. I stated at that time:
I want to emphasize that any approach to the resolution of native problems in our democratic society must be based on the fundamental principle that all Canadians will benefit by supporting the development of a pluralistic culture in which the culture of the native people, as indeed of other minorities, will have an opportunity to grow and develop.
That is the crux of the issue. The parliamentary secretary is quite correct when he says that the Grand Council of Cree and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association made eloquent presentations and were quite prepared to proceed with the bill. But I would point out to him that there are numerous people in that area who did not sign the agreement and whose rights were extinguished unilaterally. They will have no legal position from which to negotiate in the future.
I have no intention of reviewing the numerous ramifications of the bill and of the agreement, but I wish to make a few further observations before returning to the subject of non-signatories. I think it was obvious from the outset when we discussed these matters in committee that we were talking about people and about opportunity for the development of their lifestyles. Let me give hon. members an example taken from numerous illustrations which were given throughout the testimony. I think it will exemplify the mood of the hearings. On Thursday, February 10, 1977, as reported in issue No. 12, representatives of the Labrador Inuit Association appeared before the standing committee. I should like to refer to page 12 A1 of the report of the proceedings and to the comments made by Jerry Sillitt, an Inuit from Nain, Labrador. I quote from his presentation:
I will tell a little of what I remember concerning our land. In those days I was able to go with hunters when they went hunting for caribou or foxes. In those days we would follow the animals. Some winters caribou and foxes would be handier than other winters for animals move constantly and have to be followed. We would have to go further in the country. Sometimes we would be out in the country for two months and a half and sometimes even three if we and the dogs had food. If there were no animals we would come back empty handed, before our dogs starved. These past years, it was not difficult to get caribou. This winter it is doubtful where there might be caribou close by. That is why when the weather clears up and when the days are longer, the hunters will surely go hunting for Quebec was included in Labrador country because we would go beyond the border to hunt for our food and food for our dogs in earlier years and they have to go there again.
That is the kind of testimony we heard repeatedly throughout the sittings-conclusive evidence of the way of life the Indians, Inuit and non-status individuals have pursued from time immemorial. Yet the government has taken the position that the rights of these people should be extinguished, with the result that they will be deprived of any legal basis for a settlement in the future. I could have quoted numerous pas-
Jantes Bay Agreement
sages from other testimony to illustrate the lifestyle followed by these people and the importance of the land to them.
The parliamentary secretary referred to the long period during which the negotiations were carried on with respect to the James Bay agreement. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the James Bay project was announced in 1971 without reference to the native people. They were not consulted. The federal government chose to ignore the situation. The government failed to discharge its constitutional responsibility in this area. It preferred to take an attitude of "alert neutrality": this was the term they used. Imagine the Indians and the Inuit negotiating opposite the government of Quebec, Quebec Hydro and the James Bay Development Corporation. Imagine the odds in a situation like that! Nevertheless, the federal government, despite its obligations of trust toward these people, stood silently by.
I commend the Cree and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association for obtaining some of the things they did. But let us be realistic. They were negotiating with a gun to their head. They were obliged to operate within a restricted time-frame. Then, again, they were obliged to negotiate in Montreal. Here are Inuit from the Arctic circle, Cree from the interior of Quebec, unfamiliar with an urban environment as we know it, yet brought down to a big, modern city to negotiate in what, for them, might be termed a hostile environment.
I should like to refer again to what I consider to be the key issue in this debate, that is, the third parties or non-signatories to the agreement. It is important that hon. members should clearly understand the magnitude of this problem and the injustice which will be perpetrated by the passage of the bill in its present form. During the report stage I referred to the fact that the Grand Council of the Cree, and even their legal counsel and their chief, when they were making strong representations before the committee in favour of the quick passage of this bill, agreed that the approach was not an ideal one. I want to refer to issue No. 6 of the committee report dated June 25, 1977. I invite hon. members to turn to the testimony which was given by Mr. O'Reilly, legal counsel for the Grand Council of the Cree. He said:
There is no question as to what is being done. I think the stakes are high for every native group which is involved. There is no question that the stakes are also very high for the governments and the Crown Corporations and the other Indians who are involved. The idea is, in effect, to wipe the slate clean over a definite geographic area. There is no question that it is preferable that everybody and anybody who has any interest whatsoever in that full geographic area should be party to the agreement. That would have been the preference; that would have been the best thing. But that would have involved perhaps 20 or 25 groups.
He went on to say that that is the dilemma with which Canada is faced, that it is not a precedent which is a happy one. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker that it certainly is not a precedent which is a happy one. The injustice of this particular action is so obvious to those who attended throughout the standing committee hearings and to anyone who has studied the agreement and this legislation. Then on February 3, the Northern Quebec Inuit Association appeared before the committee and the president gave testimony. What he said regard-

May 4, 1977
James Bay Agreement
ing the third parties and non-signatories was very revealing. Let me quote at page 9:15 what the president of the Quebec Inuit Association had to say:
To answer your question about extinguishment of rights of third parties, about third parties, we have never been completely satisfied with the compensation of the surrender, of the extinguishment of our rights, and we ourselves do not have any authority to extinguish rights of other groups.
The federal government is the only body that has the authority to cause surrender. The surrender and extinguishment of rights is not something that we dispense. We do not have that authority. It is the federal government that has the job of extinguishing rights.
That was the crux of the issue, Mr. Speaker. The federal government had the trust and responsibility on behalf of the Indian and native peoples. It had the constitutional responsibility under the British North America Act. Yet it abrogated that responsibility by unilaterally extinguishing the rights of a large number of Indian and native peoples in that territory.
On February 10, the Labrador Inuit Association appeared before the committee, and I referred earlier to some of the testimony given by one of the Inuit of Nain who appeared. At page 12A:10 of the standing committee meeting this was said with reference to third parties and non-signatories to the agreement:
The intention of clause 3(3) seems to be clear: the aboriginal and statutory rights of the Inuit and Indians whether or not they are ordinarily resident in Quebec in and to the territory, and whether or not they are beneficiaries under the agreement, are to be abrogated.
This has significance not only for those Inuit, Naskapi and Montagnais Innu of Labrador and the Schefferville Naskapi. It has significance for all Canadians because this clause raises serious and disturbing questions about the political integrity of the government and of parliament.
We think it important to bring to the attention of this standing committee one or two items which the government appears to have overlooked. These relate to the political history of the land rights issue and the legal history of the territory.
They then went on to talk about the breach of faith on the part of the federal government respecting the commitment that was made by the former minister in August, 1973. These people represented by the Labrador Inuit Association have had traditional rights in that area from time immemorial, rights which are being unilaterally extinguished by this government.
Then on February 10, 1977, in issue No. 13 of the proceedings of the committee, we have the testimony of the Naskapi Montagnais Innu Association of Labrador. I want to refer to some testimony which indicates their concern about the legislation before us, as well as their concern at the unilateral extinguishment of third party rights. In a letter which was sent to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on October 27, 1976, which is to be found at page 13A:20 of the proceedings, they had this to say:
Over the past nine months, representatives of the Naskapi-Montagnais Innu Association have corresponded with the governments of Canada, Quebec, and Newfoundland in an effort to bring about negotiations related to the interests of Labrador Indians in Quebec. In a letter written to your predecessor, the Honourable Judd Buchanan, on May 12, 1976, we expressed our concern that negotiations concerning our interests in Quebec be entered into before passage of the enabling legislation for the James Bay Agreement, which will extinguish all rights for Indians and Inuit in the territory of northern Quebec. Mr. Buchanan referred us, on June 28, 1976, to section 2.14 of the James Bay Agreement, and stated that Quebec's undertaking to negotiate with other Indians and Inuit should alleviate our concerns with respect to the eventual passage of the James Bay legislation. Despite Mr. Buchanan's assurances, we remain deeply con-
(Mr. Holmes.)
cerned because, in our view, once the enabling legislation is passed extinguishing all rights, there is no guarantee as to what kind of agreement the government of Quebec will arrive at with us, even if negotiations do take place. Furthermore, section 2.14 concludes with the sentence, "This paragraph shall not be enacted into law''. Therefore, there is no legal requirement for Quebec to enter into negotiations.
I could cite additional testimony given by the Naskapi Montagnais Innu Association of Labrador, but here is another group of individuals, so-called third parties and non-signatories to this agreement, who are being ignored by the government. The National Indian Brotherhood appeared before the standing committee on February 15, 1977, and I read into the record at report stage this past week their principal concern regarding the legislation now before the House, which was the rights of third parties or nonsignatories to the agreement. Although they expressed other concerns, that was the major one. They pleaded before the standing committee that the government of Canada reverse its position in terms of extinguishing the rights of third parties.
Then on February 17 the ITC appeared before the standing committee and principally made representations from the settlements of Povungnituk, Ivujivik and Sugluk. The concerns of Inuit communities respecting this agreement are still not yet resolved. I received a letter as recently as April 15 of this year from the Inuit Community Council at Sugluk expressing their concern, and I should like to read part of it into the record because I think it is most important:
We are writing now for we were going to write to you here from Sugluk.
While you were here you spoke about the islands wanting to negotiate with the federal government. Also that you are going to try to have the support of the federal government to take the islands. This is the follow-up of what you said.
We cannot go with the agreement. We want Charlie Watt to tell both governments, federal and provincial, that we cannot be included in the agreement because we are not going with any of the agreements as people of Sugluk. We also are not included in the Bill C-9. We cannot give up what power we have. We have been living here for ages and we cannot give up what our fathers worked so hard for. We just cannot sell our ways and life because this is all very valuable to us. We cannot exchange our land for money. We will not let this land go just for money.
I could go on, but the point I am making, despite the comments of the parliamentary secretary, is that the problem is not yet resolved. This is an incident concerning the injustice to third parties, or non-signatories. I received a copy of a letter dated April 15. They have been excluded, by this government, in the legislation before us. I see my time is running out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have unlimited time.


John Robert Holmes: Thank you, Stanley. On February 22, 1977, the Naskapis Indians of Schefferville appeared before us. As I indicated earlier, we have indications that the agreements are proceeding. I also pointed out that we on this side of the House take a lot of credit for those negotiations. It took a lot of prodding of the government to get them to a stage where there may well be an agreement somewhere along the line. They made an excellent presentation regarding the injustices to third parties and non-signatories to the agreement.
May 4, 1977

On Wednesday, February 23, 1977, we had the Inuit Tapisi-rat of Canada. As I indicated previously, they made a very strong presentation regarding third party rights. Referring to issue No. 17 of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the testimony of the witness at page 17:9-the witness was the director of the land claims project for the Inuit Tapisirat of Canada-stated, in reference to the problems identified with ITN:
We cannot really blame the people from those three communities in Northern Quebec, Povungnituk, Ivujivik and Sugluk for objecting to the type of agreement that was reached because to their minds it was not a very good settlement. It was made under pressure from Hydro Quebec and those developers, and as far as we are concerned, those developers, Hydro Quebec and those other groups, really had no right in being part of the negotiations. The agreement should have been between the Inuit people and the Government of Canada and perhaps the provincial government, but as far as we are concerned, Hydro Quebec, James Bay Development Corporation and all those different private interests had no right in taking part in the agreement. It should have been an agreement between the Inuit and the government-
This was a contention we had made. The federal government took a position of alert neutrality throughout the entire negotiation and, of course, abrogated their responsibilities. On February 24, 1977, the Native Council of Canada made a strong presentation. The president of the Native Council of Canada, as reported at page 18:4, indicated the following:
The bill will eliminate all native rights for all native people for all time in the area covered by the agreement. Thousands of native families who are neither Indian nor Inuit, who are not under the umbrella of a special federal department but who also live on these lands and whose traditional livelihood is equally threatened, have no safeguards under the proposed agreement.
At the same time, similar testimony was received from the Laurentian Alliance of Metis and Non-Status Indians by the president, Mr. Carl Lariviere. The testimony overwhelmingly demonstrates the injustice of ignoring Indians, Inuit, Metis and non-status Indians in the particular agreement.
On March 1, 1977, le Conseil Attikamek-Montagnais made a very excellent presentation before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I will not quote from this particular one, but it pointed out very clearly the injustice that was being created by section 3.3 of the agreement which effectively unilaterally would extinguish the rights of all of those with the exception of the Cree and the Inuit. On Thursday, March 3, 1977, the Abitibi dominion band council made a similar presentation and again demonstrated that they, and others in the area, would have their rights extinguished unilaterally by the legislation that is before us.
The testimony we have seen in the standing committee meeting is, in my view, self-explanatory. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the government have ignored and abrogated their responsibilities with respect to the people in that area. They have unilaterally extinguished the rights of the Indian, Inuit and native peoples. That is action which cannot be justified on human grounds, and action-as I indicated throughout the debate on second reading and the standing committee hearings-which I cannot support.


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Speaker, because of the hon. member's reference to the minister's statement that a legal commitment
James Bay Agreement
on the part of the province of Quebec existed to negotiate, but did not exist to settle third party claims, and because the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) implied that there would be an end to any possible recourse for such third party claims, I just want to ask the hon. member: Does he not agree that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, at more than one point in the committee proceedings, went on record to the effect that in the unlikely event that such third party claims were not negotiated by the province in good faith, it was declared federal policy to negotiate and settle any legitimate third party claim? In fairness, I think this should be on the record.


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a question which was thoroughly debated and discussed at the standing committee hearings. What he is implying in his question is an issue we have raised many times. When you assess the agreement and the legislation, you will see there is only a moral commitment on the part of the federal government and the provincial governments involved. We have demonstrated very clearly in the legislation and the agreement before us that there is a commitment to negotiate, but there is not a commitment to settle. The rights they had have been unilaterally extinguished. How can you trade if you have nothing to trade with, if those rights have been extinguished unilaterally?
The hon. member is saying that there is a moral agreement on the part of the minister that if there is no action, he will take action. The record of the government, in terms of moral commitment to the Indian and Inuit people of this country, has been deplorable. We cannot support legislation that simply gives credence to a moral principle rather than a legal principle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time of the House on the bill that is before us today. It is a shame that it even exists and that we are wasting our time on it in the House. I will not take much time on it; I have only a few words to say about the bill. If I had better words to say about it, perhaps I would take a little more time of the House.
Earlier in the debate on Bill C-9 I voiced strenuous objection to the bill. I did so during second reading of this legislation last December. I said at that time that I could not support Bill C-9 as it then stood. After several months of discussion in committee, of hearing many witnesses and many groups before the committee expressing their views on the bill, and after some small changes had been made to the bill, I am still of the same opinion that I cannot support it. I, and my colleagues of the NDP, do not want to be blamed in history for such bad legislation. 1 cannot support the bill mainly because of clause 3, which provides in part:
3(3) All native claims, rights, title and interests, whatever they may be, in and to the territory, of all Indians and all Inuit, wherever they may be... are hereby extinguished,

May 4, 1977
James Bay Agreement
I cannot support that. I hoped when I was first elected to the House a few years ago that I would be in a position to support some good legislation concerning native rights, that I would see a better bill brought forward that would enshrine in the BNA Act the aboriginal rights of the native population of Canada. It is obvious to me that Bill C-9 is in no way an improvement on earlier treaties between the native people and the government. The intent of the bill is pretty well the same as that of other treaties agreed upon by the Indians and the government in the last century and the early part of this century. The government agrees to pay $225 million to the native people in the James Bay area listed in the agreement covered by the bill. This is what an Indian and Inuit will get for signing away his aboriginal rights forever. The cash settlement amounts to approximately $1,000 per year per person. That is why I have referred to this in the past as a modern-day treaty.
In the earlier treaties the Canadian government paid around $5 per person per year. The going rate today seems to be $1,000. While the government may take into consideration such modern-day phenomena as inflation, whether the government pays $5 or $ 1,000, the terms are still the same; and I say they are not for the good of the native people. Who benefits from this treaty? It is mostly the government of Quebec and Hydro Quebec who are the beneficiaries, because in the long run they will win, while the native people will get the wrong end of the deal.
The very basis of this agreement is that it deals with the rights of native people. This agreement deals with native rights as they relate to land-land which the native people have inhabited since time immemorial. This is one of the concepts that seems difficult for the white man to understand, that is, the Indian people's understanding of land ownership. There is a situation in the Northwest Territories where two treaties were signed some 50 or 60 years ago, and the land question has not been settled yet because the treaties say that the Indian people are entitled to one square mile of land for every five people, or some such formula.
The Indian people do not accept the concept of ownership of land where you have a certificate which says the land is yours. Their understanding of it is not the same as that of most other people. For the Indians, one square mile of land for five people would be a very bad situation, and that is why it has not been accepted generally and the matter has not been settled in the Northwest Territories. An Indian family who lives off the land needs hundreds of square miles. For example, there is a certain time of the year when they go to the fishing grounds. The fishing grounds take up many square miles of land and many square miles of water.
At another time of the year they go to another part of the country to hunt caribou, and caribou need hundreds of square miles of land to survive. This is the main supply of food and clothing for the Indians. There is another time of the year when the Indians go to berry growing grounds. Again that takes up hundreds of square miles. When you realize that those people depend on the land for their livelihood, you also
[Mr. Firth.J
realize how precious those lands are to them; and when you see a document in which people give up their aboriginal rights for a few dollars, it is very sad. By seeking to extinguish these rights and claims to the land, the government is, in effect, conceding that these rights and claims to the land exist in the first place. These claims are very real.
The native people of Canada lived and died on lands covered by this agreement long before the white man ever discovered them. There is an interesting point here that I would like to make. I think the white man should ask himself why the Indian people have been fighting for centuries to survive as a group and to conserve their culture, even after 400 years of oppression by the government, by trading companies, by churches and by the general public. As a matter of fact, that was indicated a little while ago in the report of the RCMP. We have been oppressed by that group, also, for a long time. In a recent report of the RCMP to the government it was stated that the greatest threat to the security of this nation are the native people of Canada. This is a ridiculous statement. When we ask ourselves why, even after all these years of oppression, the Indians are still trying to keep their culture, we find that there must be a good reason for this. That is something to think about.
I refer to the James Bay agreement as a modern-day treaty. I would like to say, again, that I and my colleagues do not want to be blamed in history for supporting such a bill. I relate it to the signing of earlier treaties by the government with the native people of this country. You do not hear people say that the chiefs who signed these earlier treaties are heros of this country nor do you see any monuments to them. I think most of them feel sad about having signed the treaties in the first place. Therefore, in no way can I support Bill C-9.
[DOT] (noo)
When we look at some of the guarantees provided in the bill, such as the hunting and trapping rights for people of the area, we remember that the hunting grounds are flooded and are subject to mercury and all kinds of pollution from industry. The experience of the Northwest Territories in respect to employment from these projects has not been good. Imperial Oil has been operating at Norman Wells for about 40 years, pumping oil and gas, but I know of only one native person who is a full-time employee of the company. The oil was discovered by a native person who did not receive any benefit from it.
Another example is the gas pipeline at Pointed Mountain near the settlement of Fort Liard in the Northwest Territories which was built four or five years ago without a single job going to a native person. Development of lands by big industry has not always benefited the native people. I am, therefore, opposed to Bill C-9 and in particular to clause 3(3) regarding the extinguishment of aboriginal rights. I feel that the Canadian government failed to live up to its responsibilities to the native peoples in the negotiations.
For the Cree, it is a modern-day treaty, with many fine benefits that other Indian groups never received, but at a tremendous price, that of forfeiting all claims and rights as an
May 4, 1977

indigenous people. This is the first agreement ever negotiated by an Inuit association with the Canadian government. I think it is a bad precedent and I would not want to see future agreements for the Inuit people along these lines.
I find that the Canadian government has had little concern for third party claimants who will be automatically affected by this agreement. This James Bay method of negotiating will soon be applied to my region-the Mackenzie Valley. I know that the Canadian government will say that it is very flexible and treats each claim on its own merits. However, the native peoples of Canada, from over four centuries of experience, know that it is always the same old policies that are applied by the government in the end.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the only way the Canadian government can truly live up to its responsibilities to the native peoples under the James Bay agreement is by removing clause 3(3) of Bill C-9. Nothing less will do. As I said last December, this clause goes against the wishes of many people who are involved in the cause of fighting, working and struggling for the recognition and acceptance of the fact that the native people of this country have their aboriginal rights.
Aboriginal rights should not be extinguished by an act of the Canadian parliament. Rather, they should be enshrined in the British North America Act. I fully understand and recognize the position of the Cree and Inuit in the negotiations that led to this agreement. They had to get what they could, and the price was the extinguishment of their rights as indigenous peoples. But I think the price was too high-and the government, failed, in a most shameful manner, in permitting this to happen.
I feel that no hon. member of this House can honestly support and be a party to an agreement which extinguishes for all time the aboriginal rights of the native peoples covered under the agreement. I, personally-and I speak for my colleagues-have no wish to be blamed by history for agreeing to such a treaty. But other members have their own conscience to follow.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 1971, the Quebec government officially announced the James Bay hydroelectric development without having consulted the people-yet repercussions would be direct-and without having studied the magnitude of its effects. It goes without saying that no study had been made, or precautions taken, with regard to the ecology or environment of the area concerned. During the following summer, the Crees learned the news and decided to convey their objections and claims to the other Indians, and the public; they finally took the matter to the courts. That was the point in time when the celebrated James Bay Agreement was launched.
After over four years of lengthy and costly negotiations, the aboriginals and other parties concerned signed a final agreement, the last major step before the one the House will take. But as we know, all litigations have not been solved; had it not
James Bay Agreement
been for the legislative obligation of passing Bill C-9 before November 1977, the whole agreement would have been called in question again, and claims and negotiations would surely have been protracted further.
However, clause 2.9.9 of the agreement implies that any further development is not likely to be dramatic. Nevertheless, Bill C-9 does not guarantee that future negotiations on rights and privileges of third parties will come to a successful conclusion. Since they are deprived of a trump card, they fear, as they have stated before the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that this might result in long and hard negotiations. Therefore, it is to be hoped that governments will keep their word and will negotiate in good faith with them. It is the main point on which Bill C-9 does not come to a formal conclusion.
Lastly, I know it would take some time to review all claims put forward by third parties about Bill C-9 but, once again, the main points were that clause 2.14 of the agreement did not provide for any obligation to negotiate, that it did not have force of law and that recommendations on that matter submitted by third parties to the federal government have not been respected. According to Mr. Bernard Mathieu, who is coordinating negotiations in Quebec City, the last issues still outstanding which have not evolved for a few months are, first, the matter of coastal islands along Quebec's western, northern and northeastern boundaries. We do not know to whom they belong and who should use them. Negotiations on that matter are going on but not at a tremendous pace. Second, although most of it has been resolved through an amendment to clause 3 of Bill C-9, the problem of Inuit in Port Burwell, still remains because, according to what little information we have been able to secure, they wish to retain some territorial rights, privileges and so on.
Third, there is also the cost of negotiations claimed by the Crees and some Inuit; they want to be reimbursed. At the beginning, governments were passing the buck to each other but now they say that no provision in the agreement forced them to reimburse the cost of negotiations after a final agreement has been signed. Once again, it is very difficult to obtain the details.
Fourth, the problem of the Naskapi from Shefferville is not completely settled. Considering that they are part of the third party to the agreement, their rights will be defined and negotiated after Bill C-9 has been passed. Once again, all third party members will have to get along without the help of the federal government to define their rights because the government did not condescend to give them the legal assistance provided for in Bill C-9, and they will probably have to be satisfied with government proposals because they do not hold many trump cards. It may be feared they will turn to courts because the matter of the James Bay Agreement having been disposed of legally speaking, they will not be able to refer to it.
Fifth, there is the problem of Category II lands. The reason for the delay in reaching an agreement is mining development.

May 4, 1977
James Bay Agreement
According to the information we could obtain, it must be decided who will benefit from titles and mining fields. It must also be determined which territories will and which ones will not be affected by the development of these mining fields. Every gain increasing mining operations will amount to a loss in terms of wildlife and environment, and the Inuit are quite anxious to preserve their heritage. Sixth, the problem of the legitimate spouse has not yet been resolved. We know that it has been going on for a long time, and since an agreement had taken place before the agreement was signed, it seems the government is not prepared to make generous concessions. Meeting the demands would have meant including in Bill C-9 a clause on the eligibility of the legitimate spouse because this will probably create problems as to whether such a spouse is eligible to benefit from the agreement.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the main conflicts that will have to be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. The negotiations are to resume actively in May 1977, that is this month, after Bill C-9 is passed, as some hope it will be. The Inuit and particularly the third parties think that if Bill C-9 is passed before the conflicts are resolved they will be deprived of a major card in the negotiations relating to the agreement because governments will have the right to decide and natives will have no legal recourse to negotiate under more advantageous conditions. And in view of the very high cost that will be incurred by third parties in the negotiations they will have to be very cooperative. However, the Inuit have certain provisions of the agreement going for them in the event their claims are dealt with after Bill C-9 is passed.
In short, those who benefitted most from the James Bay Agreement are the Cree. Naturally, they were privileged. They were directly affected by the immediate development of the James Bay, being in the very centre of operations. They were the first to start negotiations and had more time to reach an equitable agreement. They were better structured and had the advantage of larger study subsidies and more extensive negotiations. And contrary to the other parties to the agreement they have reason to complain about the slow passage of Bill C-9, and that is, as they clearly indicated, their only immediate point of dissatisfaction. The House could not meet the wishes of that band without depriving third parties because they are still far from being satisfied. Third parties need a special status to the lands where they migrate annually to continue their ancestral traditions and meet their most normal needs. The debates on this issue are still far from being over, and after Bill C-9 is passed the James Bay Agreement will surely not be a thing of the past.
Right now, more negotiations are going on in connection with the content of the agreement. I am referring to the relocation of the LG 1 power plant; la Societe d'energie de la baie James and Quebec Hydro have decided to build this plant 23 miles away from the mouth of the La Grande river, rather than at mile 44 as agreed to in chapter 8 of the agreement. Now, if the LG 1 power plant is built 21 miles closer to the west, it will directly affect the fluctuations of the water levels. Similarly, this relocation will be a major erosion factor in

Governor Island, on which the Fort Georges community is located.
Therefore, these two large provincial organizations have undertaken, in co-operation with the Cree and other native people concerned, to move the island's residents-over 1,740 Cree and 50 Inuit-to another location at mile 5, that is 5 miles further to the east of the mouth of the La Grande river. This new settlement will be built along the river on the mainland. This means the Cree and Inuit will lose several square miles of grade 1A, IB and 11 lands. They will be settled on grade 11 lands.
According to an official of the Grand Council of the Cree in Ottawa, they are prepared to move under certain conditions, and this does not jeopardize the Agreement in any way. The Cree realize that after all, nothing will turn out to their disadvantage. However, the LG 1 power plant and the Fort Georges native community relocation project have not been finalized yet. Discussions and negotiations are still under way, although the agreement has been concluded in principle. There again, a new epic era is looming large for some people, but for others, the picture is grim and they will have to work hard.
As far as the Cree are concerned, the adoption of Bill C-9 is the initial step toward the complete fulfilment of all their educational, industrial, social and training objectives. Besides, Bill 15, passed by the Quebec Legislature, will probably set up a Cree school board shortly after Bill C-9 is adopted. It is known that that school board will be given as much authority as any other Quebec school board. The Cree school board will be the first of the many steps towards socialization, that are provided for the Cree under this agreement. If the Cree avail themselves of the advantages provided by the agreement, they will have an opportunity for better development than most other people in Quebec. They regard the James Bay Agreement as the promise of a new prosperous generation, the last issued from the North American capitalistic society.
The socialization process will be longer and costlier for the Inuit but they are eager indeed to govern themselves and train those who will enrich their people later on. The Inuit of Povungnituk, Sugluk and Ivujivik have made that quite clear before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was right in stating in the House on Thursday last that the dissident ITN group was not opposed to the agreement nor to Bill C-9, if we consider the mini-referendum on the agreement. In fact, they did not vote against the agreement, they did not vote at all. According to the latest information, these Inuit will not go against the agreement as long as their territories or rights are respected. They stated in the memorandum they presented to the committee that they did not want any part of the agreement or Bill C-9.
No one could fault the agreement or Bill C-9 for granting privileges or compensations to eligible and status Inuit. It is still too early to tell whether or not they will profit from these advantages but since the agreement seems to satisfy the majority we can only rejoice with them.
May 4, 1977

Their first thoughts will be to design workable structures for the organizations created by the agreement and to obtain qualified personnel in education and other fields. In education, so far the Inuit have been less favoured than the Crees and, because of this, in certain cases they will have to appoint temporarily non-Inuit in several positions. And since there is no public road giving access to their territories and since climatic and geographical conditions are disagreeable for newcomers, the manpower will be rare and costly, and they will need qualified personnel.
If the native people want to benefit from all the advantages of the agreement, one of the priorities will be to upgrade means of communication and access. For instance, James Bay workers are forbidden to take the road between Mattagami and Radisson. Only large transports and other commercial vehicles may travel on this road. The only means of communication available to other people is the plane. For the moment, this is much more costly and less practical, since people have to remain in the area for several weeks when they get there unless they want to spend all their money on hiring a private plane.
If the various governments cooperate in good faith with the native people, we shall witness the development of those other cultures which will make our society, already highly polyvalent, still more complex and varied. To govern the country will become an even more difficult and astringent task. We shall have to intensify qualifications and good faith if we want to allow everyone to become agents of liberty and tolerance. Before, when a government negotiated with the Indians, it was impossible not to fear any losses on the part of the Indians, and every time the capitalist society took action which affected the Indians, the Indians preferred to avoid any unfavourable contact with the white man.
Nowadays, the Indians have adopted another position since they realized that they would be forgotten if they continued to avoid society. What would have happened is what history has shown us: the genocide of American Indians. Now, to a certain extent, we can rest more easily: Indians and Inuit have taken the means necessary to represent themselves and to develop their future social conditions. The immediate danger is politics and politization.
However, Mr. Speaker, there are some new developments. I said earlier that Bill C-9 does not conclude the debate with Indian Affairs, Crees and Inuit and we just heard what happened yesterday. Negotiations have now been interrupted by the natives until they reach an agreement with the government of the province of Quebec concerning Bill No. 1. Mr. Charlie Watt and Chief Billy Diamond, respectively president of the ANNQ and the Grand Council of the Crees, are urging the Quebec government to amend the legislation so as not to force any binding measure upon the natives. Most of them are English speaking. They wish to learn French for practical reasons, but, as the two leaders said, if the Quebec government restricts the natives' freedom of choice as concerns language and other matters, they will turn to the federal government.
James Bay Agreement
They even declared that there could be a breach of agreement or possible separation from Quebec.
The Crees have laid charges against some mining companies and others about mercury pollution. These procedures started about two months ago. The provisions of the agreement that have been made flexible intentionally are the object of very long and serious negotiations and each party interprets these clauses to its advantage. Many disputes are expected and the negotiations might come to a deadlock. Let us not believe that the passage of Bill C-9 will be the conclusion of the James Bay Agreement. When the governments said they had dropped their paternalistic attitude, they were just kidding themselves because it had been rejected by the natives. They are getting more and more greedy and we are just beginning to realize how competent, politically aggressive and ambitious they are. In the future, it will be more a question of equity and law than of good faith. Bona fide. This is why the government and the other parties concerned will have to resort to all their available competence.
Mr. Speaker, there is at present the possibility of a deadlock in a number of fields, and if no solution is found there might be legal action, which would jeopardize the whole agreement, which is the result of four years of negotiations. Caution and circumspection should not be overemphasized.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, after orders of the day, some interest was expressed in words I had meant to utter under my breath but which reached the very sensitive ears of a member opposite. Perhaps they also reached his sensitive soul. But, more unfortunately, they reached the sensitive ears of Hansard. I meant no disrespect, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw the offensive words.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is the long-standing practice and tradition of the House that the word of an hon. member in such circumstances is always accepted. In line with the usual way of handling such matters, the incident is therefore closed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I appreciate the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Prime Minister insists on using profanity in the House. I think I will leave the motion on the books.


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier in the day the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) raised, by way of a question of privilege, a remark of the Prime Minister. I indicated then that the matter would stand over for one day, first to give me an opportunity to verify what the words were and, of course, since the hon. member had indicated that the Prime Minister, who had then left the House, might very well want to extend an apology to the House and withdraw the remark, if that was the case obviously that would be part of the disposition I would have to make within that period of time.
I indicated that the matter would stand over, and meanwhile I will take into account the language that I see reported, and the action of the Prime Minister in the interval, in making an adjudication as to what ought to be done or how the matter ought to be handled. As I indicated earlier, I will make known that adjudication at three o'clock tomorrow.
It being after six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow.
At 6.41 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 5, 1977