Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 32(l)(p) relating to the correctness of the records of the House. If it is accepted it is a debatable motion, but I do not desire that there should be any debate except to the extent that it is necessary for me to explain the need for the motion.

On September 15 last, as found on page 7830 of Hansard at the top of the left-hand column, there appears a quotation from a previous edition of Hansard relating to a motion which the House passed on a previous occasion having to do with the subject of fish and game laws as they relate to native Indians. When I rose on that day, September 15, to seek permission to move a motion under Standing Order 43 I did not make any reference to the motion concerning fish and game laws as they relate to native Indians but rather to another motion which the House passed on the same day. Consequently, Hansard has recorded the wrong motion. In order to correct the record, and because a great deal of confusion has been created in the minds of members of the government of British Columbia, who of course did not need this excuse, I have brought this matter before the House.

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. The hon. member, I understand, wishes to correct the record of Hansard. This is done normally in a very ordinary and expeditious way simply by indicating what the change is that the hon. member wishes to be made. I must tell the hon. member that this cannot be done under Standing Order 32(l)(e) unless the hon. member has given notice to the Chair. There is no provision for this kind of motion without notice. In any event, there should be no difficulty in the hon. member indicating what change he desires, and I am sure it will be agreed that the change be made.

Mr. Howard (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, this motion is under Standing Order 32(l)(p). I assume it would require unanimous consent to move the motion without notice. In any event, the motion I seek to move is seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and reads as follows:

That the words quoted at the top left-hand column of page 7830 of Hansard lor September 15,1971 as follows:

"That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the interdepartmental committee, the establishment of which was

announced on March 29, 1965, which studied the question of fish and game laws as they relate to native Indians"

be expunged and the following substituted therefor:

"That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Stan-bury-Fields report."

If that motion is acceptable, the record will be corrected.

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. It is still my suggestion to the hon. member that changes in Hansard should be made in the normal way that has been traditional in the House. What I must now ask is whether there is unanimous consent for the motion, which is debatable of course, to be moved. Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed.

No.

Mr. Speaker:

There is not and the motion cannot be put.

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege concerning the absence today of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). In response to questions yesterday the minister indicated he would be meeting today with officials of General Motors Corporation with regard to the reported lay-offs in Oshawa and other centres. That meeting has been held. Surely the House is entitled to expect a report from the minister on a matter of such importance. In any event, surely the House is entitled to have the minister here so he could be subjected to questions on such an important matter.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Stanfield:

There are 2,000 families involved. A backup of unemployment will also take place. The minister seemed upset, if not angry, yesterday because he had not been consulted about this matter in advance. He is not in the House today. I understand he will be meeting the press after the question period. If it is the roster system, which has no support under the rules, that is preventing the minister from being in the House today, I say that this is contemptuous of the House.

Shame!

8062

September 22, 1971

Absence of Minister from House

Mr. Staniield:

It is a violation of the privileges of the House and its members. I hope the Prime Minister will make it very apparent to the minister that not only is he permitted to come into the House today but that the Prime Minister would like him here to answer these questions.

Mr. Speaker:

Is the Prime Minister rising on the question of privilege?

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):

Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege. I wish to indicate that the House knows perfectly well there is no violation of privilege in this instance. If there were, I would like to hear a quotation from the rules as to what privilege was violated.

Oh, oh!

Mr. Hees:

You would ignore them if we cited them to you.