1978-06-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of great concern and pressing necessity. Given the deep concern felt by members on both sides of this House that two citizens of the Soviet Union, namely, Ida Nudel and Vladimir Slepak, were given severe sentences for expressing their belief in the preservation of human rights in that country, and specifically that they were sentenced for expressing their desire for free immigration, an element of human rights which we and all like-minded people regard as fundamental, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni):
That, in light of the severe sentences imposed upon two citizens of the Soviet Union, Ida Nudel and Vladimir Slepak, for expressing their belief in the preservation of human rights in that country and specifically for expressing their desire for free immigration, the House of Commons wishes to convey its deep concern to the government of the Soviet Union together with the wish that the sentences might be reviewed on humanitarian grounds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST HOUSE PAY TRIBUTE TO FRENCH CANADIANS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move an important motion of special national interest.
Considering that today marks the beginning of the French Canadian holiday in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin):
That the Canadian parliament pay tribute to all French Canadians on that holiday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


PETRO-CANADA REASON FOR SELECTION OF AGENTS IN HUSKY OIL TAKEOVER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the retention by Petro-Can of the investment and financial counselling firm of Pitfield, Mackay Ross, Ltd. in its attempt to acquire control of Husky Oil Ltd., in view of the fact that Ward C. Pitfield, president of Pitfield, Mackay Ross, Ltd., was a director of Husky Oil Ltd. during initial negotiations with the company on behalf of Petro-Can, and in view of the participation in the negotiations of a representative of the Prime Minister's office, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House directs the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to make statements on motions at the earliest possible date as to what considerations led to the selection of Pitfield, MacKay Ross Ltd. as agents for Petro-Can, and specifically whether the fact that Ward C. Pitfield was a director of Husky Oil Ltd. played any part in the appointment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 23, 1978


YOUNG CANADA WORKS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the Department of Employment has cut $2.5 million from the Young Canada Works program, which seriously hurts young adult students from areas of Canada with far above average unemployment rates, and since the same department has now cut $50 million from phase III of Canada Works as compared to phase II, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the officials of the Department of Employment be taken before the Canadian Human Rights Commission for discriminating against the needy.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Members will have noted, I am sure, that I did not put the question in respect of the motion proposed, pursuant to Standing Order 43, by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie). The reason I did not do so was that I have consistently refrained from using the provisions of Standing Order 43 in order to issue salutory messages of any sort. It seems to me that to use the motion in that way-and I am certainly prepared to be consulted if I am wrong in this approach-would be a temptation to use a motion for various messages of congratulation all of which are praiseworthy but surely are not matters of urgent and pressing necessity within the language of the Standing Order.
It seems to me if we are going to open the use of that motion for one kind of congratulatory message, we must be prepared to take, on a daily basis, motions pursuant to that Standing Order in respect of birthdays of cities and of provinces or in respect of various historic events and congratulatory messages.
I have consistently refrained from doing that. I have listened to the motions and it seems to me that hon. members who put them forward enjoy the opportunity of doing so. However, the Chair has never put the question to the floor as to whether there is a matter of necessity requiring unanimous consent for debate. I really think if I start doing that, we must be prepared to accept a great flow of this kind of motion and I think that should be resisted. That is the reason for that approach this morning.
Again I say that if members want to speak to me about a change of policy in that regard, I would be only too glad to take it under consideration.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the Minister of Employment and Immigration back to the very important topic I asked him about on Wednesday. It is a matter that affects all Canadians and the degree of confidence they can have in their dealings with their government. I have carefully read the answer given me by the minister on Wednesday. I want to ask, again, specifically what information his department has been in the habit of supplying the RCMP from confidential files.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there is a specific provision in the act which in fact allows information from the files to be made available for particular purposes. There is also a discretionary factor in section 114, which was amended, as you know, under the new act. There was some concern about whether the discretion that could be applied was directly related to the act itself and to social insurance numbers. The legal opinion I received was that this, in fact, was the case.
Given that situation, it was no longer possible to give information to the RCMP which would help with its investigations of criminal activity. The kind of information involved would obviously be names, addresses and names of employers, the information that is in the file.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, the evidence given to the royal commission is that the Unemployment Insurance Commission, on hundreds of occasions since 1974, has given information to the RCMP. When did this government decide to ignore the assurances given by former prime minister Pearson in 1964, when the social insurance scheme was first introduced, that this information would be held strictly confidential, not to be used for any other purpose but for internal unemployment insurance purposes?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the interpretation which has been given to that particular section is, as I have said, somewhat fuzzy and subject to interpretation, namely, that there is a discretionary power, formerly in the commission and now with the minister, to make that information available; so there was no feeling that there was, in fact, any illegality or any breach of that particular statute.
Because of recent events and, particularly, my own responsibility as minister, I sought and obtained a legal opinion to the effect that my discretion could only be exercised in a very narrow area in so far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned. There is no feeling that there has been any illegality. It was an interpretation that was taken, I gather, by former commissioners that they in fact had this authority.
June 23, 1978


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the minister refer to the remarks of the former prime minister. Finally, I want to ask him, in reference to what he said on Wednesday about amending legislation, what plans does the government have to amend legislation and what would they be proposing to amend such legislation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me, on the surface, that it was important, in the interest of helping the RCMP both with security and with criminal investigations, that information of this kind should be made available to assist them in that particular enterprise, but because this subject matter is being looked at by the McDonald commission it would be somewhat premature to suggest the kind of legislation we would have in mind.


RCMP TELEX ACCESS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister. Going back to 1964, the assurance made by the then prime minister, Mr. Pearson, about the confidentiality of social insurance numbers, subsequent to which, in or about 1969, direct telex access to computer information was given-not just to the RCMP but, indeed, to approximately 800 police forces across Canada which would work through the commercial crime unit in Ottawa and have equal access to this information-can the minister tell us whether the telex access was given for all purposes, not just investigating UIC fraud but for all purposes, with ministerial knowledge and approval or by order of a predecessor of the present minister? In other words, what happened in 1969 which opened all computer files by this telex system; and was it with the knowledge and approval of the responsible minister of the day?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that that particular date is, in fact, appropriate. It may be that the memory of the individual who was giving evidence indicated that this information had been made available. According to my information, this kind of information had been made available since the forties when the legislation first came into effect. There was a discretion exercised at that time by the commission that was somewhat broader than apparently we have authority to give. That is why I had to give instructions that it was no longer to be made available.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the minister for making that order, which I think may have been prompted by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West. But that does not matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister was quite frank in admitting that earlier in the week. The minister said, in reply to my colleague from Vancouver Quadra, that it was the commissioner's interpretation-and I think he said that quite deliberately-rather than the minister's interpretation of
Oral Questions
section 126 and predecessor sections of the same nature, and be referred to the fuzzy nature of that particular section in its interpretation. Was there never a legal interpretation requested by a responsible minister subsequent to, say, 1964, the date of the Pearson assurance, until just recently when the minister took the initiative for which I commend him? I am speaking of a legal interpretation of what he described as a rather fuzzy section.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that there would have been a legal opinion obtained by the minister in view of the discretion exercised prior to the amendment which was made at the request of the hon. member for Hamilton West when Bill C-27 was before the House. Prior to that particular section being amended, the discretion rested with the commission and I would expect that they secured an opinion, were satisfied that they were correct or assumed they had that authority.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Can the Postmaster General confirm that substantial cutbacks in the manpower of the Post Office are now being actively implemented and that a national plan is being developed in which some 3,000 to 3,5000 man-years of work will be eliminated by the fiscal year 1981-82?


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of cut-backs of the workers in the Post Office. I am sure the hon. member is referring in his question to an article which appeared in a newspaper recently, saying that there would be a cutback of 269 employees in the Post Office. It is very wrong.
Of course, I cannot stop my management from supplying me with studies on ways they could maybe save some money in the Post Office, when sometimes we are accused of having large deficits and being inefficient. These cutbacks if any will be made with the collaboration of the unions and will come about mainly by attrition. There is no question of someone losing their job in the Post Office.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that I have in my hand a plan called "Ontario Postal Region Business Plan Summary 1978-1982", in view of the fact that the minister said these cutbacks will come about through attrition, and in view of the fact that in this plan it specifically states that the instructions and guidelines to management in the Post Office are to optimize use of part-time help in districts across the region, I ask the Postmaster General how he squares what he has just said with the instruction in the plan that they must maximize and optimize use of casual

June 23, 1978
Oral Questions
help, while at the same time cutting back on full-time and part-time employees of the Post Office.


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, I think instead of criticizing management for such a report, I should compliment them because they are trying to find ways to be more efficient. Again I state that there is no question of some workers losing their permanent jobs. One would have to go to some of our plants to see how a Post Office operation is handled: it is not easy, and sometimes we have to pay extra time and hire casual workers because of overvolume or accumulation of mail. If we want the mail to get out, we have to get it out with casual workers and extra time. It is a planned way to be more efficient and to try to save money for the taxpayers.


John R. Rodriguez: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Postmaster General confirm that the instruction in the plan to optimize casual help is a direct attempt to undermine the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, and will he also assure the House that he is prepared to guarantee jobs for those workers presently serving on counter service and mail sortation?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, no such instruction has been given in the way the hon. member mentioned. It is strictly a report given to me as suggestions.


John R. Rodriguez: It says "must".


Maurice Lamontagne: They can say "must", but that does not mean it is going to be done. It is just a report given to management and to me to see how we perceive such suggestions. If it is done, it will be after consultation with the unions.
I think it is absolutely normal that management should give me some ideas and new ways to save money.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Sometime in April, an agreement was signed by Quebec and the central government dealing with the development of tourism in Quebec. In the press release, a few projects are mentioned but it is also reported that there may be up to 80 of them.
Can the minister tell the House how one goes about benefiting from that program in areas where municipalities or other bodies may want to develop that industry in the interest of residents and visitors alike? I am thinking more specifically of the area south of the St. Lawrence along the American border, which Americans go through in large numbers.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member for Bellechasse that several parties were involved in the consultations which resulted in the signing of that agreement. There were municipalities, it goes without saying, several private and public groups involved in the promotion, development and operation of tourist complexes, with either private or multiple operations. I might suggest to the hon. member that the organizations to which he has referred might go to the department of tourism, fish and game, in this instance, as well as to the high commissioner for youth, recreation and sports; they might also go to the Quebec planning and development bureau. I would suggest that those organizations also make representations to those various provincial bodies; they might also be well advised to send me or my deputy minister in Montreal copy of the documents or projects they may want to draw to my attention.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The minister stated in his reply that a private enterprise, an individual or a group of people could take advantage of such a program by submitting a project to whom it may concern. I should like to be understood: this will not be a profit-oriented enterprise but one which really wants to develop the industry in the area, something which would foster other developments.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to confirm this, for among the projects which we have accepted to finance under the current agreement are several which will be carried out by non-profit organizations such as those mentioned by the hon. member, and of which I could name from memory at least four or five.


PIPELINES
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council in his capacity of having jurisdiction over the pipeline agency. Is it the government's intention, as I have previously suggested, to reactivate the standing committee dealing with this specific matter, particularly in light of the imminent recess of parliament and the obvious difficulties the companies have with financing and possible delays with respect to technical difficulties, which have been reported in the press, so that while parliament is in recess, members could address themselves to these possible problems?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would be ready to
June 23, 1978

discuss that possibility with representatives of other parties as to whether, within the terms of reference established for the committee, it would be possible to meet. I have no objection whatsoever if it is generally agreed that the committee might perform a useful service.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, since it is apparent that the companies are experiencing difficulty with financing, and since the bill that was passed by the House deals with that aspect, including the time-frame, in concise terms, is the government presently discussing with the government of the United States the possibility of reopening the pipeline agreement to make certain changes to the timing of the start of construction as well as to the financing formulas? Are there such discussions under way at this time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the discussions with the United States on the terms of the pipeline agreement, we have no intention of initiating such discussions in order to reopen the terms of the agreement. The hon. member has mentioned that the companies are having difficulties with respect to financing. I met with the president of Foothills earlier this week. In so far as Canadian action and performance are concerned, there are absolutely no obstacles; the Canadian operation is going as quickly as possible. What has to be determined at the present time is up to the Congress of the United States.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, many of the areas to be traversed by the pipeline have never been subjected to any impact study in terms of the environment or socioeconomic impact, particularly areas in British Columbia and Alberta. It is the intention of the government and the pipeline commissioner to activate one or several of the advisory councils provided for in the bill, in an attempt to get them to fulfil these functions and catch up with the studies that were made in the Yukon and other parts of the pipeline area? Is it the intention to get some of these advisory councils going, as was suggested by some of the interveners before the committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is our intention. It will also be the intention of the agency to consult with the public on the social and economic terms which have been tentatively established for carrying out the project.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question in direct line with the last comments of the House leader about consultation with the public. More than a week has gone by since the preliminary date for the submission of views on the environmental and socioeconomic impact studies asked for by the commissioner. Has the minister been in touch with the commissioner to set up a program of public hearings? If so, will the schedule be made known to all members of the House so that they can be there and hear what the public has to say about this matter?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received from the commissioner any schedule of meetings, but I will raise the matter with him.


Donald W. Munro: In that case, will the House leader given an undertaking that when he does get the schedule arranged with the commissioner, he will communicate with the other House leaders even if the House is not in session so they may apprise members of the various parties about this particular schedule?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues are available during the recess, I will be happy to consult with them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whom I welcome back to the House after his trip abroad. I have two questions concerning Canada's involvement in southern Africa. The first concerns Namibia. Canada put forward, on behalf of the five western nations, a package of proposals for a UN supervised transition for the future independence of Namibia. That package ran into trouble with the leaders of SWAPO and was followed by South Africa's raid on guerrilla units.
In light of the recent meetings in London, can the minister indicate the present status of that package, bearing in mind his previous remarks that it was not negotiable, and can he specifically tell the House what Canada's continuing role will be in the obtaining of independence for Namibia?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the package to which the hon. member refers continues to be on the table. As the House knows, it has been accepted by South Africa. While not rejecting the package outright, SWAPO indicated some reservations concerning it. There was a period of several weeks during which no contact occurred-official contact, in any event-between the five western countries and SWAPO.
The hon. member made reference to meetings in London. Perhaps he was alluding to the meetings in Paris. In any event, we met in Paris last week. The decision was taken there that the Western Five countries would resume the initiative and would seek means of talking with SWAPO once again about keeping the initiative going and keeping the progress going. To date, those meetings have not taken place because a number of steps have to be taken with regard to consulting South Africa and also some frontline states. I am shortening, here, a very complex subject.

June 23, 1978
Oral Questions
In so far as the package remaining the same as when it was put forward, as to its substance, the answer is yes. There are two matters on which I gather SWAPO wants further clarification, if you wish. One is the location of the residual South African troops in Namibia, where they would be stationed; the second has to do with the future of Walvis Bay. Our talks with them will be principally concerned with elaboration of these matters rather than any change in the Western Five proposals.


Douglas Roche: Second, Mr. Speaker, I wish to touch on the subject of Canada's involvement in Zaire through our participation in the new $116 million western aid package as part of the $1 billion salvage operation for that country.
I would like to know the full extent of Canada's involvement in the aid package. What monitoring devices will be set up, bearing in mind the widespread corruption in Zaire? Related to that, since economic stability is directly related to the question of security, has the minister investigated the report in the London Sunday Times that 11 Soviet generals have moved into Angola, a move that could presage intensified military activity in the southern regions of Africa?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have no wish to short-change the hon. member on my answer, but I think it is obvious that I would not be able now to go into all the details of such a complex and multifaceted question. I would be glad to send him a written response. I simply say in passing that the reference he has made to co-operative effort with regard to assistance to Zaire predates, in terms of its starting-up time, the most recent developments in Zaire. In other words, it has been contemplated by a number of countries, particularly western countries, for some time.
The security measures to which he referred are of very great concern to all the parties. Similarly, as the hon. member will have noted, there have been a number of expressions that this kind of assistance, if it is put together, must be on condition that the present government of Zaire undertakes certain reforms and improvements in its procedures and general attitudes. I think that is as much as I can say within the constraints of the question period but, I repeat, I will provide a written answer in supplement.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport regarding grain movement. Given the degree of congestion in Vancouver with the tie-up of hopper cars, and the fact that the port of Thunder Bay is under-utilized at this point, will the minister give more consideration to a study to see if it is possible to move more grain through Thunder Bay than has been done up to this time, even to the point of dealing with some of the purchasers of the grain to see whether, for example, in Russia the Baltic ports could be used as opposed to Darien?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is very conscious of the opportunities at the various ports. A certain amount of grain can be shipped from the west or east, alternately. There is this year a very heavy program of grain for movement through Thunder Bay and east coast ports. I do not think any further switching of grain at this moment would be a solution.


RECALL OF DEFECTIVE MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. In the United States, several million cars have been recalled because of unsafe construction defects in the pollution controls, steering and gasoline tanks. Although this mass of information concerning unsafe automobiles has resulted in recalls by the manufacturers, no similar recalls have occurred in Canada. What is the reason for manufacturers selling cars in Canada and not having to make similar recalls, as the same unsafe conditions exist here as in the United States?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there are differences in law as between the two countries. That has implications as to whether there is an obligatory recall or not. However, I am not aware of the situation to which the hon. member refers. The general practice has been for recalls in Canada to occur when they occur in the United States, sometimes with a time lag although only a very short one. If the hon. member has specific examples where he thinks that is not happening, I will be glad to hear about them.


William Arnold Peters: I think lack of legislation in Canada is the difference. Is the government considering legislation to provide up to date supervision of all cars licensed in Canada to guarantee the public that unsafe defects will be repaired by the manufacturer, without cost to the consumer? If not, why do we not intend to provide consumer protection for the Canadian public?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we will indeed be looking at appropriate changes in the legislation in order to give us the necessary power if the motor company refuses to carry out what seems to be its obvious responsibility. In the meantime, however, the existing system, while lacking the legal power to require recalls, is working fairly satisfactorily in terms of companies actually responding to a need and recalling vehicles.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I feel very comfortable now that my seatmate from Calgary North is back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 23, 1978


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I want to address a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I have heard some very disturbing news. I do not know whether the minister is aware that on Sunday last a plane coming in from Trinidad with some 86 people aboard landed in Toronto, and that some 30 of the passengers were shuttled off into a corner and subjected to intense interrogation lasting from 12 midnight until eight o'clock in the morning. We are speaking now of a visible minority.
Having given these sentiments some consideration following an exchange with the hon. member for Greenwood, will the minister look into this matter and see that a full investigation is carried out? Surely, we cannot have the world thinking that as far as this country is concerned, people of colour are undesirable.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is a pleasure, once again, to reply to a question by my colleague from the class of '68. On Sunday we shall be celebrating ten years of our presence in this chamber. I am not familiar with the situation to which he has referred. The fact of the matter is that visible minorities are assuredly most welcome in this country. If action of the kind the hon. member has described was taken, 1 am satisfied my officials had good reason. But I will check to find out why they followed the course they did and why the inquiries were so prolonged.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would remind the minister that there were 86 passengers aboard this plane and that those who were not bothered were white. To my mind, that raises a number of questions. I do not want to put words in the minister's mouth with respect to discrimination, but since the hon. gentleman visited the city and port of Toronto the other day to explain what our immigration policy is all about, I think it is time he went to Toronto and other ports to advise his officials what the policy really is in terms of discrimination. I think it is time he lowered the boom. This sort of thing is destroying our credibility and is affecting our relations with our Caribbean Commonwealth partners.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Like myself, the hon. member is a lawyer and he will appreciate that I should hear both sides of the story before making the kind of judgment he seems to have made in advance.


William Arnold Peters: What lawyer ever did that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I gather that the hon. member for Timiskaming has lost the odd case, Mr. Speaker. As far as visiting my officials is concerned, I do not think that is necessary. They do not practice discrimination and they have been advised both by myself and my deputy minister of our policy with respect to discrimination. We do not want to see any of it.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


STUDY OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise us the extent of the co-ordination between VIA Rail and GO Transit in the Oshawa-Toronto-Burlington-Hamilton corridor? Is there a joint committee established comprised of representatives of the Department of Transport, VIA Rail, GO Transit and the Ontario ministry of transport and communications to look into the co-ordination of the services in this corridor?


Otto Emil Lang: A joint committee comprising, particularly, representatives from the province of Ontario and the federal government has been examining passenger traffic in the whole of southern Ontario, which would include the corridor to which the hon. member has referred. The officials engaged in this work do, of course, consult widely with the interested operators including VIA Rail, GO Transit and other forms of transportation.


William James Kempling: Can the minister advise us whether, in particular, there has been any co-ordination in the location of station facilities in the Oakville-Burlington-Hamilton area? It would seem to make eminent good sense to combine facilities wherever possible and it appears to me this is not likely to happen, particularly in the Burlington-Hamilton area.


Otto Emil Lang: The general subject of the co-ordination of facilities, including train and bus transport, is of concern to this committee. If the hon. member has a specific case in mind where he thinks development is occurring contrary to this spirit, I would be glad to have the information and to look into the matter.


MANPOWER
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration: it follows a question put to the minister on Wednesday by my hon. friend from Halton. It concerns a problem on the west island of Montreal; potential immigrants have been refused entry into Canada to fill positions which employers have not been able to fill with Canadian workers.
My question has to do with salary levels and a statement by the minister that there are 150 qualified physicians in Quebec who are unable to secure employment and for whom salary levels considered adequate vary from $60,000 to $80,000 per annum. Does the minister continue to insist that a company offering employment for an industrial position requiring medical expertise at a salary level of, say, $38,000 per annum should be denied access to the services of a competent potential immigrant from the United States because unemployed Canadians have expectations of a salary at twice that level?

June 23, 1978
Oral Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That is probably the best advertising in the world for those particular positions, Mr. Speaker. I would say, that, most assuredly, if there are people prepared to work in that field whose salary expectations are too high, immigrants will be welcomed. But I would wish to check the facts the hon. member has given us.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister aware of any investigation or inquiry by the federal government into the source of increased trading, at obviously increased prices, in the shares of Husky Oil of Canada prior to the initial release and publicity surrounding the original offer of Petro-Canada to purchase those shares?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such investigation. However, as the hon. member knows, the director of research under the Combines Investigation Act sometimes carries out investigations on his own initiative or at the request of six citizens. I will check with him to see whether such an investigation is under way or is proposed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I understand the minister is wearing two hats this morning; that he is acting solicitor general. I ask whether he is aware of any federal investigation into this whole matter, bearing in mind that provincial investigators might not have the jurisdiction needed to seek answers from departments of the federal government? In this case, not only was the offer known to Petro-Canada but details of it were intimately known to officials right in the office of the Prime Minister, as in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; so there might well be a need for a federal investigation. Does the minister know of any such investigation by the law enforcement agencies?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Solicitor General I have noted the hon. member's questions and representations. I will bring them to the attention of my colleague.


PETRO-CANADA POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH HUSKY OIL TAKEOVER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to the disclosure that Mr. Ward C. Pitfield was, at the time of the initial negotiations, a director

of Husky Oil while at the same time acting as an adviser to Petro-Can. I have a simple question for the minister. Was Petro-Can aware of this conflict of interest at the time of appointing the investment counselling firm as the agent of Petro-Can?
[DOT] (U52)


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to accept the allegation that there was a conflict of interest. That is something for the director himself to consider. The decision to engage the company, of which he was a member, and the other agents acting for Petro-Can was made by management and the board of directors of Petro-Can. They were seeking the best in the business.


GOVERNMENT KNOWLEDGE OF POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister, whose office has a direct liaison with Petro-Can in the negotiations for the acquisition of Husky Oil Limited shares. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister and his office has a personal interest in the negotiations for the acquisition, did they take time out to consider what particular qualifications Mr. Ward C. Pitfield, of Pitfield, Mackay Ross Limited, had for acting as agent in this connection, and did they satisfy themselves with regard to any potential conflict of interest of this investment counselling firm when making the appointment of that firm on behalf of Petro-Can?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on the substance of the question, I can only repeat exactly what the minister has just said. In so far as the allegation is concerned that there is a particular link between my office and Petro-Can, of course that is not true.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There have been reports, of apparent authenticity, which indicate that the U.S.S.R. has proposed to accept parity of forces in Europe which would involve reduction in the Warsaw Pact forces to a greater extent than any NATO reduction. I should like to ask the minister, who is responsible for Canada's participation at the Vienna conference on mutual and balanced force reductions, to confirm or deny this report, if he can.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm it in general terms. There has been a proposal by the Soviet Union with regard to force reductions in the context of the MBFR discussions. It is a
June 23, 1978

welcome initiative and is being regarded by what I would describe as the allies as a genuine offer. It is being examined in detail in that light. Once that examination has been completed, a response will, of course, be made to the Soviet Union and it may be possible for me to say something more about it at that time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, will the minister, in light of the great importance of force reduction in the vital area of Europe, not only secure this information from his officials in Vienna or people who are connected with this reduction, but also make a statement to the House or, if the House is not sitting, make a public statement indicating what is happening, so that Canada can contribute to the fullest extent in this rather promising development?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to do that. I repeat that I do not know how soon an assessment and a response will be made, nor the channels that will be employed for that; but to the extent it is possible for me to do so, certainly I will make either the House or the public aware of what the developments are. I agree with the hon. member that this particular development is of very great importance.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Government of Canada has embarked on a $1.7 million program called "Buy Canadian", and in view of the fact that the Canadian government owns 53 per cent of Consolidated Computer Incorporated which wants to bid on the Loto Canada $23 million award on computers, and considering that over 80 per cent could be manufactured in Canada if tenders had gone out to Canadian computer manufacturers, about which the Ontario government has already inquired, would the Prime Minister make an investigation to see whether or not the policy of his government and of Loto Canada cannot fall in line with the $1.7 million program to buy Canadian, rather than buy from this American shell which has been set up in Toronto?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Acting Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport):: Mr. Speaker, may I say, on behalf of the minister who is absent today and whom I replace as acting minister, that the minister gave a full answer to that question. But if the hon. member wishes to ask further questions on that subject matter, I will certainly be very happy to bring such questions to the attention of the minister who will be back next week and will answer them.
Oral Questions VETERANS AFFAIRS


REVIEW OF VETERANS PENSIONS
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Could he give a report on the progress of the review being undertaken by his department with respect to changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act and war disability pensions? In answering that question, could he say whether he intends to bring forward legislation to implement the suggested changes or direct that regulations be changed so that veterans who are presently disqualified and in severe financial straits might be relieved of their financial worries?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, let me say that the review in question has just been undertaken and is in progress. It will be a lengthy review: the act in question is 48 years old and it has been amended many times. But there is more work to be done on it. All this is done in consultation with veterans' organizations across the country. I expect only an interim report this fall.
So far as disability pensions are concerned, there is nothing under review in that respect. It would certainly be premature for me to indicate at this time that legislation will be forthcoming from that review until the studies are completed.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. A short time ago the minister was sent a brief by the Canadian Co-operative Wool Growers Limited expressing concern about the sheep and wool industry in Canada. Has the minister had an opportunity to study this brief and is he prepared to recommend a proposal to cabinet for a wool incentive payment program?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker, because the economic conditions so far as sheep production is concerned in Canada have been very good in the last ten years. The situation has not encouraged more production. It has been a money-making venture. Less people are going into wool production and more are going out of business, but not because they are not making money on it.


Douglas Charles Neil: I doubt very much that the minister has read the brief. I should like to ask him another question with respect to the GATT negotiations. Can the minister advise the House whether or not the Canadian negotiator has or will be discussing the tariff structures of this industry with a view to parity?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, not only did I read the brief, I met the representatives of the sheep growers association in my

June 23, 1978
Committee Reports
office in Ottawa approximately three weeks ago to discuss all the problems which they presented to me. Naturally, I disagreed with them on how great some of their problems are. Concerning GATT negotiations, all I can say is that we have made those representations. In answer to the hon. member's question as to what we will gain from it, that is unknown at this time.


PRICE STABILIZATION PROGRAM FOR POTATOES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has reconsidered his decision with regard to the quantity of potatoes to be subsidized under the price stabilization program. Has he had representations with respect to the quantity of potatoes for which each producer may expect a payment, in view of the fact that the initial amount which he stipulated will be paid on a pro rata basis depending on the number of acres planted, rather than the number of acres produced? There are serious complaints from potato producers on that basis.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, my officials were in New Brunswick-they also met representatives of the potato industry from P.E.I.-in the area of greatest concern, about which the hon. member is speaking. I have not received a report because some of them are returning to the capital only today from their meeting in New Brunswick.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, in view of the severe difficulties, can the minister advise when he will be able to determine what the final payment will be? Will he take under advisement the idea of changing the regulations which are strangling the amount of the payment to farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have one of the fairest stabilization programs for farmers in the world. We will be reviewing it. But no matter what I offer, the hon. member will still have some criticism of it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. O'Connell.

Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because at the beginning of the sitting of the House I moved a motion under Standing Order 43 to enable the House to send a message of congratulations to all the French Canadians who make up one of the two founding groups of the country, a French-speaking and English-speaking community. I think, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members were surprised to see that you did not put the motion so that hon. members could vote on whether they accept it or not. I understand that later you made a remark about motions under Standing Order 43 concerning congratulations and so on, but I remember, Mr. Speaker, that motions under Standing Order 43 were introduced in the House to congratulate the Canadian hockey club, to wish prompt recovery to some hon. members and for similar reasons. I think particularly that we have come to a turning point in our history where we talk more and more about Canadian unity and by that means-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must correct the hon. member. If he examines the circumstances which in the past surrounded the presentation by an hon. member of such a motion or of a motion of congratulations to a certain group in the country, he will see that they were always moved by an hon. member but never by the Chair. That is the difference. It is impossible to prevent an hon. member who wants to move such a motion under Standing Order 43, but this is something completely different from the Chair putting a motion or asking for unanimous consent. That is simply the difference I explained this morning.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, unless you consider you rendered a decision, I would like to raise under the same question of privilege as the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie), if you allow me to do so-


Mr. Speaker:: I said that if some members intend to discuss the difficulty of interpretation of Standing Order 43, I invite them to agree between themselves and submit their ideas later next week, but this is certainly something I will consider carefully.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is precisely on Standing Order 43 that I want to make a remark. In the past, and I recognize the procedural argument of the Chair, you have dismissed with good reason motions under Standing Order 43 because they were frivolous like the motion of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) whom we can hear now, because preambles were too long, because motions were politically oriented, or were speeches in themselves, and I recognize that the Chair was right in dis-

June 23, 1978

missing those motions. One of the main criteria on which acceptance of a motion under Standing Order 43 must be based is the following: it must be of an urgent nature. That is what Standing Orders indicate. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that if you have judged today in your discretion that it was not urgent to move a motion under Standing Order 43 to pay tribute to French Canadians on June 23, on the eve of their national holiday, if you have determined that this motion is out of order, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to insist that in future motions moved under Standing Order 43 be rejected much more frequently, because very often not only are they not urgent, but frivolous, politically oriented, have long preambles and serve much more opposition members' political purposes than they emphasize an important and urgent event.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may have a point to make next time a motion which he considers frivolous is presented, but for the time being, we have finished for today with motions under Standing Order 43. Next time, this may be something to discuss, but for the moment the discussion is closed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 253, 1,161, 1,318 and 1,604.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does Blue Line Taxi have exclusive rights at the (a) Ottawa International Airport (b) Ottawa Railway Station (c) Chateau Laurier Hotel and, if so. in each case (i) over what period of time or times (ii) on what basis was the Company selected?
2.	In each case, were tenders called and (a) if so (i) on what date (ii) what are the names and addresses of all those who tendered (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	In each case, does Blue Line Taxi pay a fee to the government for the concession and, if so, what is the yearly amount?
4.	In each case, what are the names and job designations of the highest ranking persons who made the decision to award the concession to Blue Line Taxi?
5.	In each case, will the concession come up for review and, if so (a) on what date (b) will other taxi companies be given consideration and, if not, for what reason?


Otto Emil Lang: Transport Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) Yes, Blue Line Taxi Company Limited has a licence with Transport Canada for the exclusive operation of a ground transportation system at the Ottawa International Airport, (b and c) To be answered elsewhere, (i) The licence is on a year to year basis with provisions for cancellation by either party on six months
Order Paper Questions
notice, (ii) On September 1, 1952, Red Line Taxis Limited was granted a licence to operate a ground transportation system at the Ottawa International Airport. The licence was on a year to year basis with provisions for cancellation on six months notice. On October 20, 1970, Blue Line Taxi Company Limited purchased the outstanding shares of Red Line Taxis Limited and in so doing, they acquired all the interests of the company including the licence with Transport Canada.
2.	Tenders were not called because Red Line Taxis Limited was considered to be the only company at the time capable of providing the required level of ground transportation service. Red Line Taxis Limited was purchased and incorporated under the name of Blue Line Taxi Company Limited on October 20, 1970.
3.	Blue Line Taxi Company Limited pay Transport Canada 5 per cent of gross revenues derived from the bus service and 15 cents for each taxicab carrying passengers from the airport. The amount of gross revenue paid by Blue Line Taxi Company Limited to the Crown is considered confidential to the parties involved during the term of the agreement.
4.	The official responsible for the initial issuance of the licence was the regional director, air services, Toronto.
5.	(a) The operation of the ground transportation system at Ottawa International Airport is reviewed periodically to ensure that the required level of service is being provided. There are presently no plans to call tenders, (b) At such time a tender is called, it will be unrestricted public tender call affording all ground transportation companies the opportunity to bid.
The management of the Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. (a) To be answered elsewhere, (b and c) Yes, with respect to the provision of taxicab service and in so far as that privilege may be lawfully given; (i) for five years from October 1, 1974; (ii) tenders.
2.	(a)(i) Yes, September 13, 1974. (ii) It is not the practice of Canadian National to disclose the names of persons or firms submitting tenders for the supply of services, (b) Not applicable.
3.	It is not the practice of Canadian National to disclose financial details of commercial transactions between itself and persons or firms providing services.
4.	The decision was taken by responsible officers of the company duly authorized to take such decisions.
5.	(a) At the termination of the agreement, (b) Yes.


Mr. Marshall: What was the final cost of the DREE (a) Stephenville High School (Schedule B Reference: 1.31) (b) Stephenville Regional High School (Schedule B Ref: 2.14) (c) Corner Brook East Junior High School (Schedule B Ref.: 2.19) (d) Port Saunders Regional High School (Schedule D Ref.: 2.21) (e) Hawke's Bay Elementary School (Schedule B Ref.: 2.22) (f) Stephenville Crossing Elementary School (Schedule B Ref.: 2.40) constructed in the Province of Newfoundland?

June 23, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) $1,962,582.81 (b) $4,497,489.54 (c) $3,088,064.97 (d) $1,581,792.59 (e) $614,384.01 (0 $3,583,314.99


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Does the government intend to take action in regard to assisting with the costs of storing and stock-piling grain and other food in regard to the establishment of an internationally coordinated system of nationally held cereal stocks adequate to provide food security and to make the grain market more stable in the future, as agreed on by the participants at the two-day meeting of agricultural ministers from the 24 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris last week and, if so, what is the action?


Eugene Whelan: The Canadian government is prepared to play a positive role in the establishment of grain reserves. Grain reserves are an important element in ongoing discussions aimed at developing a new international wheat agreement. The Canadian government has supported the principle of a world grain reserve to help overcome the problem of world food security. Support for its establishment is contingent on development of suitable arrangements for implementation including the sharing of obligations in carrying any reserve and assurances that the reserve will not interfere with commercial markets. Action which could be taken by governments to assist with the costs of storing and stockpiling grain would depend on the final form of any new agreement. The government is prepared to examine ways in which assistance might be provided when negotiations are at a more advanced stage.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	Is the government at present involved in reissuing licences to those vessels in the British Columbia fishing fleet, which for economic reasons were previously taken out of fisheries by the government and, if so (a) what was the original intention of the government in participating in the buy-back scheme (b) on what grounds are the vessels now being reissued licences (c) how many of the vessels with reissued licences have been resold to date and what was the resale price in each case?
2.	At the time of the buy-back scheme, how many vessels were purchased by the government and at what cost?
3.	Did the government later sell the boats at a public auction and, if so, what was the amount received?
4.	What was the number of registered fishermen in British Columbia at the time that the buy-back scheme was inaugurated?
5.	What is the present number of registered fishermen in British Columbia?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. No the government is not so involved, however, a total of seven licences were inadvertently reissued; all were subsequently recovered, and five of which were reinstated by the minister's decision based on their appeals.
2.	Three hundred fifty-four vessels. Cost, $5,848,000.
3.	Total revenue from sales, $2,647,000.
[Mr. Marshall.)
4.	Number of registered fishermen in 1969 (based on number personal licences issued) was 10,870.
5.	In 1977 there were 10,668 personal licences issued in British Columbia.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 426 and 479 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall questions Nos. 426 and 479 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Elzinga: What are the names of all lawyers in Alberta used by the government or any Crown corporation?
Return tabled.


Mr. Crosbie: What law Firms or individual lawyers (a) in St. John's (b) in Corner Brook (c) elsewhere in the province of Newfoundland drew up CMHC mortgages in (i) insured (ii) uninsured loans in 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977 to date and, in each case, what were the number of loans and what was the total amount of mortgage loans in each year?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-42, to amend the Criminal Code as reported

June 23, 1978

(with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, to facilitate the discussion on Bill C-42 by the House today, it might be useful if I briefly restate the major thrust of the legislation.
In essence, Bill C-42 attempts to set minimum standards of official language rights for accused persons in criminal proceedings everywhere in Canada. This is done by providing such persons with the right to testify in their defence in their own official language before a judge or a judge and jury who speak and understand that official language.
I am pleased to say that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs supported the concept of the bill in a manner which was most encouraging. Members obviously devoted a great deal of thought and effort to their comments and deliberations on the legislation, since it addresses an issue which is a cornerstone of Canadian federation. Particularly I want to convey the minister's deep appreciation to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) for his most useful contributions to the discussions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Carl Young: Several amendments were worked out at committee stage which I feel maintain the essential spirit of the bill, while taking full cognizance of the fact that it must be administered by the provinces and implemented in the final analysis through judicial decisions of the courts. Also I wish to pay tribute to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) for their contributions, encouragement, and the leading roles they took in ensuring a full and thoughtful presentation of this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Carl Young: Of key importance are the amendments made with respect to proclamation of the provisions in each province. The committee was extremely concerned to ensure that the fullest possible consultation takes place with the provinces, and that every care is taken so that the provinces are in a position to implement the legislation in an effective manner. Thus, the original provision permitting separate proclamation of the legislation with regard to indictable and to summary offences remains. We have added to this a provision spelled out in the legislation which provides that consultation between the federal and provincial governments must take place in order to ensure orderly implementation before proclamation can take place.
Should the federal Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and a provincial attorney general be unable to come to an agreement on an appropriate date for implementation, after due consulta-
Criminal Code
tion has taken place, and after the Minister of Justice has satisfied himself that implementation would be feasible in that province, the legislation would give the province an additional two years to establish appropriate facilities, and then proclamation would take place.
I might just add that as a result of discussions at the officials' level we are confident that Ontario would agree to implementation of these provisions within approximately one year after royal assent. As regards Quebec and New Brunswick, it is expected that the time frame for implementation would be in the area of four to six months.
We have agreed in our discussions with the provinces to give every possible assistance in facilitating implementation. The bill permits a change of venue where it is impossible to hold a trial with a minority language judge or jury in a given territorial district. Although the committee explored the possibility of transferring a trial out of province, it was generally agreed that the fundamental principle of common law should be upheld, which requires that an accused be tried as close as possible to the place where a crime was committed so the community offended may see justice done.
The legislation allows for the ordering of a bilingual trial where circumstances warrant it. Thus, in a case where a defendant wishes to be heard in his minority official language, but many of the witnesses speak only the other language, the judge may order that jurors be empanelled who are able to speak both official languages. This respects the rights of the accused and at the same time facilitates the conducting of the proceedings.
Also, it is a general fact that the bilingual population of any province is larger than the unilingual minority official language population and it is, therefore, relatively easy to constitute a bilingual jury.
The standing committee which, as we know, includes some very talented lawyers, as well as hard working lay persons, expressed concern that the provision which requires a judge to inform accused persons in criminal proceedings of their right to testify in their official language might cause delays and add an undue strain to the already overburdened court system. We have, therefore, amended the legislation to provide that where the accused is represented by counsel, counsel may, if necessary, request such a trial. Only where there is no counsel would the law oblige the judge to advise the accused of his or her right to be tried in his or her minority official language.
In closing, I just want to say that I feel the discussions which took place and the agreements which were reached in the standing committee hearings were extremely useful, both in terms of clarifying the intent of the legislation and in improving its effectiveness. Again, let me thank the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for its hard work, and express the hope that this House will deal equally expeditiously with this very important piece of legislation today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 23, 1978
Criminal Code


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-42 today I would first like to endorse the words of the parliamentary secretary, that we did carry out a very thorough, careful, and thoughtful study in-depth at the committee stage of this bill, and came up with some pretty good answers.
In order that the House will understand the position we first took on this side, and in order that it will not ever be misunderstood at any time by anyone anywhere, let me state that when the bill was first presented to this House it said that the legislation would be deemed to have become law on proclamation of the federal government.
The second important thing it said, leading to the position we took, was that every accused person should be informed by the judge before whom he was being tried that he or she had the right to be tried in the French or English language.
During my speech at the second reading stage I took the position, on behalf of my party, that the bill required two amendments. I suggested that either there must be enabling legislation brought in by the provinces in order that there might be a joint proclamation, or the bill could be brought into effect by proclamation of the federal government after legal, and I would emphasize that word "legal", consent by the province, whether it be British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, or even Quebec. That was our position at second reading.
At that time I made a short speech and proposed those two amendments. 1 do not think I am breaking any confidence with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) when I say that we had several meetings during which he expressed the feeling that the amendments I suggested had merit. He saw some difficulty in the words "consent" and "joint proclamation". As a result, there was a compromise. After all, the art of politics is the art of making the impossible possible.
I did go along with the suggestion, on behalf of my party, that the federal government could proclaim the bill, but before doing so it must have consultation with the provinces, and not something wishy washy by the Minister of Justice. I make nothing more of that than to say that the minister will not soon be the Minister of Justice.
I have heard here in parliament, as have other hon. members, ministers giving their word, only to see the opposite happen. I remember the Hon. Judy LaMarsh once saying that social security numbers would never be used by members of parliament. Before the ink used to write that statement was dry that practice became part of what we were obliged to do in the House. I have always taken the view that the greatest protection human beings have is the protection of the law.
I told the Minister of Justice I would accept that suggestion on one ground, namely, that consultation had to be consultation by law, and that consultation had to take place before the bill could be proclaimed in Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or any other province. In other words, the federal government had to consult in a serious and meaningful manner with provincial governments, that

consultations had to take place by law, and until that process had been completed the bill could not be proclaimed in any province.
The reason for this is very simple. In some provinces there are areas with very few French-speaking people. There would not be a sufficient number to make up a jury or to provide the necessary court reporters and registrars. In fact the minister admitted that in at least one province, even considering all the judges in that province, he could not find one that was bilingual. We must have a practical approach.
The first amendment I proposed, and which has now been put forward by the parliamentary secretary, is that consultation must be by law, and not just at the convenience of the Minister of Justice or his officials.
The second amendment was with regard to the date of implementation. Some of my French Canadian colleagues took great exception to this and wanted to stipulate a time limit of two years. However, they themselves were voted down by their own members. I can appreciate their position and that they do not want to wait forever, because Christmas must come some day. I was not in any way unfair, nor was I inflexible in any way, but I pointed out that we should leave it open because any government, whoever the minister of justice may be, is responsible to the people, to his cabinet and, above all, to his leader.
If the Minister of Justice fails to fulfil the responsibility he has to Canadian law, then public opinion would soon take a course whereby he or she would have to change their ways. According to this section amendment the government could move a proclamation exclusive of the time of negotiation, even if it takes three years. I am thinking now of Prince Edward Island where it would have taken three or four years just to get them to phase in this bill once the federal government decided to proclaim it, exclusive of the time of consultation. Under the amendment, it would be two years before it would become law. This seemed to be a very fair approach and is almost the proposal I put forth on second reading.
There is a third catch which the Minister of Justice and I discussed, and I just wish that he were here. I am not breaking confidence with him, because it is a question of law. It dealt with the qualification of a jury, which would be a matter for the provinces to decide. For example, if I was holding a trial in Calgary and the sheriff brought together 60 German-speaking people-and considering our whip, I had better put some Poles in there-and some Poles and some others who could not speak English-1 am not suggesting that our whip cannot speak English-the defence attorney would challenge the whole panel on a motion to the judge and say that those people were not qualified because they could not speak English and therefore were unable to comprehend what they would hear in evidence. Thus, the question of qualification is very important, and I wanted to review it thoroughly so there would be no misunderstanding.
June 23, 1978	______________COMMONS
It would have been very easy for me or for anyone from western Canada to vote against a bill of this nature, and maybe as politicians we would get some votes. That, however, is not what I came to parliament for 20 years ago, to show how many votes I could get from people who for some reason have prejudices and who may be bigots in Quebec or bigots in western Canada. I came to parliament to try to create laws that would work for Canadian people and keep this country together in a unified way to enable Canada to survive as a great nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would take great exception to anyone who says, "I stood alone". There is a time to stand alone and there is a time to go to work. If the man who says he stood alone was so worked up about the situation and so sincere with regard to what was going to happen, why did he not do something? I understand the problems, and I have read some of the speeches the hon. member has made, and some of the points he has made are correct. Why did he not come to committee? It is true that he is an independent now, but he could have called me up and I would have said, "Look, we cannot put you on the committee but I'll speak to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), the chairman of the committee, and I will suggest that you move a motion and we will move it with you."
If he had ideas on this bill and they were reasonable, I am sure we would have backed him and invited him to come to committee and interrogate the witnesses and work with the people. That, to me, is what a member of parliament is here for, not just to stand alone, to build a field of politics for political votes and vote buying at the polls.
Having dealt with those two amendments, I would like now to deal with the third. The idea I think was in the draft, and I do not think that the government did anything it thought would work against the functions of the courts. It was in the draft that says that every judge would have to read, "You have a right to be tried in French or English". We have thousands of people living in our cities for whom this would be totally unnecessary.
When I see how hard in my lifetime the magistrates, who are now called provincial judges, work, they have no time to be reading out a lot of rhetoric which means nothing. They work far harder than county or appellate court judges. Some of those men sit on 50 trials a day and have to make 50 decisions which in some cases call for lengthy sentences. So, I suggested to my Liberal friends and to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), who went along with me, that we make an amendment to the effect the judge would have to read it out only if the person was not represented by counsel. This seemed fair, because in this day of legal aid there are few people who are not represented by counsel. It even goes further to say, "if he has not been represented by counsel on that charge".
We were able to streamline a bill and put it into effect, that, if it had gone through in its original form, might not have been
DEBATES	6705
Criminal Code
done fairly or for the right purpose. It may have been done because some people do not understand the regional make-up of the provinces and the difficulty a person faces when he or she is bilingual on 8th Avenue in Calgary, and not considering that it is easier to be bilingual on St. James Street in Montreal. I say that to you fairly. I am sure that if I had been raised in Montreal I would have been pushed around at the old baseball game in French and known what it meant. In Calgary I was pushed around with some obscenities, but mostly in English. I am saying that that is what the spirit of the bill is about.
I have one thought that I would like to leave with hon. members. It refers to two decisions which have to be made by the Supreme Court of Canada, and they bother me somewhat.
I will always remember an incident which occurred to me as a second-year law student, and which exemplifies exactly what I am about to say. We had Dean Cronkite from New Brunswick. He was a fine dean with a tremendous sense of decency and a sense of the social life of man, and particularly a sense of Canada. He knew the difficulties because he came from New Brunswick. A student said to him, "Mr. Cronkite, 1 am in trouble. I have found two cases, with the same facts, and the decisions are different." The dean said, "I want you to go to your desk immediately and make a note of that, because if it ever happens again I will have to do something with this library."
That is what I say to the Supreme Court of Canada now. In a case which I have mentioned before, the question was whether Quebec could have an investigation in that province. I never understood why the federal government challenged Quebec on that. I suppose there was some jealousy about guarding their jurisdiction. Sometimes you have to be jealous about guarding jurisdiction when it comes to things like this becase a province never knows when the federal government is going into the provincial house to change things around.
There are two sections of the BN A Act which are relevant. Under powers delegated by the BNA Act, criminal law falls directly under the federal government. The penalty for murder in Quebec is the same as it is in Vancouver, it is the same for rape and for robbery; the criminal law is the same. In that, I think the Fathers of Confederation had great foresight. They saw farther than the founders of the United States where there are different criminal laws in each state and there has to be extradition from one state to another. We do not have that problem. It was spelled out very carefully that the administration of justice within the province, including the constitution, the maintenance and organization of provincial courts both civil and criminal, and including procedure in civil matters in those courts, falls directly under the jurisdiction of the provinces. That is why they ruled that Quebec could even have witnesses come from other areas.
I should like to quote now from Canada Supreme Court Reports, Part 1, 1978, Vol. 1, page 156, where the Chief Justice said:

June 23, 1978
Criminal Code
Although it is recognized that s.92(14) of the BN A Act gives the provinces a source of authority that enables them to blend with exercises of federal power when the latter is used to invest provincially-established courts with jurisdiction in matters within exclusive federal competence, federal overriding authority is always in reserve. Thus, although the Parliament of Canada has designated the provincial courts to administer criminal law, they have to do so according to procedures which under s. 91(27) of the BNA Act, are within exclusive federal competence.
There is one exception-the administration of justice.
Then there is the famous Jones case which went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The question was whether language is a matter of criminal law or a matter of the administration of justice. I say it is a very fine point.
We often hear media commentators say something to the effect that they are now going to introduce Senator "X", a great expert in constitutional law. The only experts that I ever knew in constitutional law sit in the Supreme Court of Canada. They can weigh and interpet the law to suit the social-political situation as it exists. All courts have done that. Maybe it is one of the things that has to be done. We have only to look at the tremendous decisions made in the United States in the last ten years to see how very political they are.
In many cases jurisdictions overlap, and I have dealt with this before. For instance, there is a federal Minister of Agriculture who has certain duties and a provincial minister of agriculture who has certain duties, and the duties overlap. The administration of justice overlaps, and trade and commerce overlaps-trade within a province is a provincial right, and trade outside a province is a federal right, and there is often a conflict. 1 should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the case of Nicola Di Iorio and Gerard Fontaine, appellants; and The Warden of the Common Jail of the City of Montreal, respondent; and Rheal Brunet, et al. Mis en cause; and The Attorney General for Canada, The Attorney General for Quebec, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General for Alberta, The Attorney General for British Columbia and The Attorney General for New Brunswick, intervenors, which is reported at page 152 of Canada Supreme Court Reports, Part 1, 1978, Vol. 1. There seems to be a conflict between what Justice Martland said in this case and what other judges said in the Jones case.
I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, that I am glad the government made the amendments to this bill. I do not know where we would stand today if it had not. It was a pretty brash kind of thing if you said you were going to take it like the cod liver oil treatment, but at least members of the government were flexible and they gave in. They knew that if they were to get a bill through that would work in Canada, there had to be some sort of flexibility. Once again I congratulate them.
I want to come back to my earlier point. The hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) is a great friend of mine. I never thought I would read a speech of his and find fault with it. I thought I taught him well when he was a student, but it seems I have strayed in my ways. Let me give a little bit of history, Mr. Speaker. In 1968 it was suggested that I should run in the new Calgary North constituency, the university area, and that somebody else should run in Bow River. My

friend got the riding of Bow River. He inherited Bow River with every poll that was won for the Tory party, so he started off pretty well.


John R. Rodriguez: The silver spoon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would have said golden.
When the hon. member for Palliser spoke in the debate on Bill C-42 on May 4 this year he said, as reported at page 5153 of Hansard:
-from the official opposition because the spokesman for that party said he wished to see the bill amended in such a way that the provision would not be imposed in any province without some sort of positive action being taken on the part of that province.
The experience we have had with amendments is another matter which bears consideration.
He had better attend a committee and find out if that is correct. He continued:
I, for one, do not feel the hon. member's suggestion will receive very real consideration from the Minister of Justice because the Conservatives have 'cried wolf before in this regard.
He implied that we had cried wolf and lost. I know that I have moved amendments that probably should have been passed. I have moved amendments that I know I probably should have won. I moved amendment on the gun control bill, and Bill C-83 died because of our amendments. The government brought in a new bill and it went through. Then the hon. member for Palliser goes on to say as recorded in Hansard at page 5154:
My understanding was that we did not have to worry about that and that the minister would see what the situation was. Perhaps he is correct in saying that he should be able to rely on the attorney general for Alberta. 1 have a different opinion, and if I were the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) I would not want to support the proclamation of this particular bill if I had to rely on the attorney general of the province of Alberta, because sometimes I think he is completely out of touch with what he is doing.
Then he goes on to challenge him that he had broken his promise for which the Minister of Justice took him to task.
I will say this once again about voting. Once or twice in my lifetime I have voted against my party. I remember once, and Stanley will like this,-I never knew whether Mr. Stanfield did, and excuse me for calling you by name-but it was a question concerning the minimum wage. I forget the amount involved. I know at that time we were trying to cut back, but it seemed to me it was pretty small potatoes, that we had to raise the minimum wage, and I voted to increase it. Looking back, I might have been wrong.
The point I want to make, and which I want to re-emphasize is that it is easy now for a member to go to western Canada, especially if he has written all these letters and said in them, "Do you want a French trial in Acme?"-or somewhere else,-the answer will be no. If I wrote to Quebec and in my letter asked, "Do you want to have an English trial in Quebec?" Naturally it will be interpreted that there will be no French at all, we will have English. But if the polls report 88 per cent, his polls are the greatest polls. If we had a Gallup

poll like that and they came in for the Tory party that they were right and justified, I am sorry for what would happen to the Liberals; they would look worse than they did in 1958.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be extremely brief. No doubt the parliamentary secretary will be pleased to hear that.
However, I would like to open by saying how pleased we all are in this House to have with us once again the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and to hear him in such excellent form as he has displayed this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wanted to speak on third reading because I had hoped to speak on second reading, but I was indisposed at the time and was unable to be present in the House. I do want to take the opportunity on this third reading debate to express my wholehearted approval of Bill C-42 with the amendments in it which have been introduced by the committee. It seems to me to represent what has been long overdue, a measure of recognition of justice toward minority groups.
As some of you may know I have had something to do with the courts of law. There is nothing much more pathetic than a person who is in the unfamiliar circumstances of being charged and tried on a criminal offence. Such a person is deemed to be innocent, of course. But there he is in unfamiliar surroundings. Add to that the difficulty that the matter may be entirely conducted in a language which he does not comprehend. Denying him the right of the use of one of the official languages in that trial, in my judgment is a serious interference not only with the rights of minority groups but a serious interference with a person's individual right.
1 think this act does justice to both of those things. It is 110 years or more since Confederation and it is high time that we established beyond doubt this right of a person, no matter to which official language group he may belong, should that person be in court tried or charged with a criminal offence he should be able to have part of those proceedings at least in a language that he can comprehend. Therefore I welcome this bill.
I understand why it is necessary that the bill should not come into effect without a proclamation which involves the approval of the province in which the bill is to be administered. Normally speaking I am not sure that I would be in favour of that, but in this particular case it is necessary. As the hon. member for Calgary North has pointed out so clearly, the administration of justice is a provincial right even though criminal law is a federal subject matter. However, may I be permitted to say that I hope the various provinces of Canada will give hasty consideration to agreeing to a proclamation so that throughout all of Canada people will have this right to a criminal trial, partly at least, in the language of the person charged.
Criminal Code
Most of the members of this House know by now that I have indicated my intention not to be a candidate again. Therefore 1 will not be able to address this House too often in the future. I believe, as I think all members do, most sincerely and wholeheartedly in Canada and our federation. I want to add to that statement of conviction that part of my feelings on the matter is based on my experience of 16 years in this House, which is not very long compared to some hon. members, but it is still a fair chunk out of one's life. My experience during that time has been one of warm, close, and friendly association with people whose original language is different from my own.
I have had the experience of travelling across Canada with hon. members. As well, 1 have recently been on a trip to South America with the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), and a trip across Canada with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). I have had the closest co-operation with various people on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, including the present chairman, the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I am sure other members can give similar examples. With that co-operation, working across party lines and working for the constructive benefit of Canada, we can maintain, improve, and expand the welfare of Canada and the strength of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part briefly in this debate on Bill C-42. Since Fridays seem to be great days for understanding in the House, and this one being no exception, we are looking forward to such an experience. I listened with much attention to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who made a fine speech, evoked heart warming memories which are likely to bring us all close together, create a better atmosphere and better feelings between Canadians from various provinces.
Mr. Speaker, during the debate on second reading, I indicated how pleased I was finally to see a bill being introduced to make sure that Canadians living in other provinces would be tried in their own language. 1 am aware of the fact that this bill may prove difficult to apply at first, but with consultations and good will, this bill may certainly become a fact of life. Of course, there will have to be consultations, but with the communication such as those we have today, I think we have much more chance than, say 40 or 50 years ago, of reaching our goal more quickly.
Because of this, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact, as I indicated early in my remarks, that I fully supported Bill C-42 and that I shall continue to do so. I am sure that if my colleagues were called upon to speak today, their comments would be in a similar vein. Therefore, if there is a vote, I shall certainly support this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
6708
[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1978
Criminal Code
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to call it one
o'clock?
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that we could go on to other things, but I have a suggestion to make. Since consideration of Bill C-42 went very quickly and since tomorrow, June 24, is the national holiday of French Canadians, and to enable hon. members who live far away to get to the celebrations tomorrow somewhat refreshed after having rested a bit, I suggest that the House adjourn now until Monday afternoon at two o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The intention of the hon. member is very valid. He has moved a motion in good faith which is certainly appreciated by everyone, but this motion is not quite regular. First of all, there is no one to second it. Perhaps hon. members can think about this during the lunch break because the motion of the hon. member is related to certain conditions. He made a few comments, but he could have simply suggested the adjournment of the debate, and then, the House could have met in an hour and hon. members could have been called in for a vote. I believe this would meet the same objective. There could be consultation during the lunch break.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: I am prepared to second the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I believe that when we come back at two o'clock for the report stage of the bill on the Export Development Corporation, we could consider the possibility of disposing very quickly of that bill, and if we can do so, we could leave much earlier than usual this afternoon. I would personally favour this procedure.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I believe it would be acceptable to us if we were to consult the House leaders and use the next hour to discuss the possibility of acceding to the wishes of the spokesman for the Social Credit Party of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In view of all this show of good will, I am sure that hon. members will allow me to leave the chair and call it one o'clock. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).l

Yvon Pinard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the business of the House today, June 23.
Although Standing Order 2(3) of the House provides that the House shall not sit on New Year's Day, Good Friday, and so on, and Saint-Jean-Baptiste day is also in there, although that part of Standing Order 2 does not specify the day on which Saint-Jean-Baptiste day is to be celebrated but rather Saint-Jean-Baptiste day itself, which is tomorrow, June 24, and I know that our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) participated in the drafting of that order and the interpretation that must be given is that indeed the House is not required to sit only on Saint-Jean-Baptiste day, and not the day before that, in spite of that standing order, Mr. Speaker, in the present circumstance I suggest that we in Canada urgently need to change our attitudes and take every available opportunity to show that we have that great state of mind that is required to promote a true coexistence of our two major French-speaking and English-speaking communities in an atmosphere of mutual generosity and full equality. I believe that to underscore the anniversary of all French Canadians by giving unanimous consent to adjourn the House at this time of the day would really be showing a favourable attitude toward that true coexistence that is desirable in Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a happy coincidence that this morning all parties co-operated to give third reading to a bill to allow Canadians to be tried in their language all across Canada. On the eve of the anniversary of French Canadians I think it is a fortunate coincidence and I think the event should be celebrated by allowing all members present here this afternoon at two o'clock to give their unanimous consent to adjourn the House until next Monday and pay tribute in this way to all French Canadians. So I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to adjourn until next Monday, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care and, indeed, with great sympathy to the words of the parliamentary secretary. Although the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I have some doubts as to the interpretation of the standing order, one which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre participated in drafting, I want to say I have no doubt at all that the hon. member did not participate in the drafting of the British North America Act.


An hon. Member:: Prove it!
June 23, 1978


Walter David Baker: However, I think the suggestion is an appropriate one and therefore, on behalf of my party, I can see that we consent.
The matter was originally raised by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) in another way, but there have now been consultations with respect to it and I think the course suggested is quite appropiate. It may be we should take a look at the standing order if there is any reasonable doubt about it so that no misunderstanding could arise in future. Not only because of the interpretation the hon. member has placed upon it but from strong personal feelings I think it is important that in this place particularly we should recognize events which are of major interest to all people in Canada, and one of those occasions is, of course, the feast day of Saint-Jean-Baptiste.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for making it clear I did not participate in drafting the British North America Act. I can tell him that in 1949 I did move certain amendments to section 91(1) which were accepted, so some of my language is in the British North America Act.


Mr. Lefebvre:: How about Magna Carta?


An hon. Member:: How about the Ten Commandments?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It sounds to me as though it is time for us to adjourn. I am glad the parliamen-
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day
tary secretary did not try to found the proposal to adjourn this afternoon on the wording of the standing order because I happen to think it is quite clear what is meant under that standing order. In any case, I think it is better we should decide to take the afternoon off by unanimous consent rather than under the terms of a standing order. Therefore, on behalf of my party I am in favour of this House adjourning now in recognition of the feast day of Saint-Jean-Baptiste.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Co-operating with the goodwill of hon. members, I am pleased to recognize the unanimous consent for adjournment. However, it has been suggested to me that, from the point of view of procedure, it would be advisable to present a motion for adjournment of the House until Monday.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I move that this House adjourn until 2 p.m. Monday next.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This House therefore stands
adjourned until 2 p.m. next Monday.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2:13 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
80045-57^4
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 26, 1978