1972-03-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 65(3)(c) I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman):
That the members of the House of Commons on the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments be Messrs. Allmand, Bechard, Blair, Brewin, Fairweather, Forest, Gibson, Laprise, Marceau, McCleave, Penner and Schumacher.
And that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in light of recent indications that the summer youth labour force with increase by more than 100,000 to 1,300,000, and because the government's summer youth program will provide employment for only a handful of this number, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Secretary of State immediately consult with business and industry in order to develop a concerted approach to the imminent crisis in youth unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. member for Egmont under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the practice of many foreign auto manufacturers of updating the age of year-end models and selling them as new. In view of the fact Canadian consumers are being duped and that existing legislation appears to sanction this practice, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis):
That the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, take immediate steps to put an end to the updating of automobiles.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is presented under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.
On the order: Introduction of Bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. After discussion the suggestion was made and I believe agreement has been reached that the motions for the introduction of a number of private bills might stand today for further consideration perhaps tomorrow or Friday. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
1040

March 22, 1972
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Rowland: 1.	What were the financial deficits or surpluses accrued by the Post Office Department for the current and each of the past ten fiscal years?
2.	For each of these years, what were the surpluses and deficits for first, second, third and fourth class mail?
3.	What percentage and volume of second class mail is composed of newspaper deliveries?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. Financial deficits or surpluses accrued by the Post Office Department: (deficits are shown in brackets)
		$000's
1961-62		(29,063)
1962-63		(24,713)
1963-64		(36,900)
1984-65		(10,878)
1965-66		(30,668)
1966-67		(47,764)
1967-68		(67,191)
1968-69		(90,331)
1969-70		(55,940)
1970-71		(100,592)
1971-72		(95,615)
2. Deficits or surpluses by Class of Mail: (deficits are		
shown in brackets)		
Year	First Class	Second Class
	$000's	$000's
1961-62	23,010	(29,559)1962-63	27,526	(30,215)1963-64	Not	Available1964-65	9,650	(30,495)1965-66	14,929	(28,142)1966-67	6,889	(33,787)1967-68	1,575	(37,493)1968-69	(15,623)	(41,784)1969-70	( 525)	(28,362)1970-71	(30,346)	(35,020)1971-72	(15,141)	(33,261)Year	Third Class	Fourth Class$000's	$000's1961-62	( 7,186)	4151962-63	( 6,439)	1271963-64	Not	Available1964-65	( 7,627)	9,1521965-66	(12,906)	5281966-67	(12,787)	(2,546)1967-68	(17,272)	(3,630)1968-69	(21,353)	(1,230)1969-70	(20,319)	(3,334)1970-71	(23,556)	(4,687)1971-72	(27,328)	(9,313)Newspapers	constitute approximately	27% of all
second class mail. The volume of newspapers approximates 120 million pieces per annum.


INTEGRATION OF CANADA MANPOWER CENTRES AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION OPERATIONS
Mr. McBride: Does the government intend to integrate more fully the operations of the Canada Manpower Centres and the Unemployment Insurance Commission to the end that every Manpower Centre in Canada will have at least one staff member trained in assisting claimants who experience difficulties with the Unemployment Insurance Commission?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Manpower and Immigration):: The Minister has arranged for the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration to examine ways of developing further co-ordination of the services provided by both organizations. This will include the matter of stationing staff.


BILINGUALISM PROGRAM
Mr. Orlikow: Of the $50 million Federal Fund for the Program of Bilingualism across Canada, how much money was allocated to each province in the 1970-71 fiscal year?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Under the bilingualism development program, the federal government paid the following sums to the provinces during the 1970-71 fiscal year: Provinces: Newfoundland, $123,485; Prince Edward Island, $101,490; Nova Scotia, $733,615; New Brunswick, $3,694,660; Quebec, $29,986,813; Ontario, $12,164,400; Manitoba, $849,557; Saskatchewan, $597,063; Alberta, $865,359; British Columbia, $883,558; Total; $50,000,000. According to the grant formulas, at the end of the fiscal year an additional sum of $2,097,848 remained to be paid to Ontario; this was done during the 1971-72 fiscal year.


NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WORKING IN GROSSE-lLE, QUEBEC
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How many persons are working for (a) the Department of Agriculture (b) other departments in Grosse-Ue, Quebec?
2.	Before being posted to Grosse-Ile, were any of such persons working for the Department of Agriculture or another department and, is so (a) in what locations (b) what were their responsibilities (c) what is the name and address of each such person (d) what is the profession of each (e) what is the annual salary of each such person?

March 22, 1972

3.	What is the annual cost of operating and maintaining government facilities in Grosse-Ile?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and Transport as follows: 1. (a) Nineteen; (b) none.
2.	Yes, two persons were working for the Department of Agriculture or another department before being posted to Grosse-Ile: (a) Rimouski, Quebec; (b) Contagious Diseases Control; (c) Leclerc, Dr. R.-Grosse-Ile Quarantine Station, Co. Montmagny, Quebec; (d) Veterinarian; (e) Pay of classification, applicable to Veterinarian 4. (a) Chicoutimi, Quebec; (b) Contagious Diseases Control; (c) Brunet, Dr. R.-Health of Animals, Federal Building, Racine St. East, Chicoutimi, Quebec; (d) Veterinarian; (e) Pay of classification, applicable to Veterinarian 2.
Department of Agriculture	$370,000
Department of Transport	
Placement of 2 buoys	$1,050.00
Checking of the 2 buoys	700.00
Removal of the 2 buoys	1,050.00
Total	$2,800.00


AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM FOR PENSIONERS
Mr. McCutcheon: Does Canada have a reciprocal agreement with the UK such that United Kingdom pensioners now living in Canada receive increases in the rate of pension and, if not, are discussions under way relative to establishing a formula for such arrangements and when may a decision be reached?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In 1959, there was an Exchange of Letters between Canada and the United Kingdom on social security which was principally of value to citizens of the United Kingdom who returned to that country from Canada. In the interval, there have been a number of social security changes in Canada. At the present time, consideration is being given to replacement of the present Exchange of Letters by a more comprehensive reciprocal agreement in which the payment of increases in United Kingdom pensions to beneficiaries residing in Canada will be one of a number of factors which will have to be taken into account.
Discussions between officials of Canada and the United Kingdom commenced in 1970. While an early conclusion is desirable, negotiations of this type are by their very nature complex and protracted, and it is difficult to estimate when a revised agreement will be established.
Questions


PARRSBORO, N.S.-POSTAL FACILITIES
Mr. Coates: 1.	Under what arrangement will postal facilities be available to the residents of the Town of Parrsboro?
2.	What will be the cost to the federal treasury on both an annual basis and over the term of the lease or contract?
3.	From whom were the facilities leased?
4.	How many similar arrangements are in effect in the Province of Nova Scotia at the present time and what is the annual cost to the federal government?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. By leasing a whole one story building at 115 Main Street.
2.	$8,740 per annum; total cost for five years $43,700.
3.	Chignecto Holdings Ltd., Amherst, N.S.
4.	15 at an annual cost of $158,802.25.


PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATION ON DIRECTORSHIP OF CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Marshall: Is the Province of Newfoundland the only province in Canada without representation on the directorship of the Canadian Development Corporation and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, however an effort was made to provide the Canada Development Corporation with a board of directors that would have some experience in all the major regions in Canada.


GUERILLA TRAINING CAMPS, ETC.
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	By province and territory, how many guerilla training camps have been discovered by the RCMP for each of the years 1961 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	By province and territory (a) how many persons were arrested by the RCMP because of (i) illegal possession of weapons (ii) conspiracies (b) how many in each category were convicted, during the years 1961 to 1970?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: The answer, in so far as it concerns the Department of the Solicitor General, is as follows: 1. None as far as R.C.M.P. is concerned.
2. This information can only be obtained through a review of innumerable Criminal Code files; which would produce information only in so far as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned. The cost in terms of manpower and time would be exhorbitant or prohibitive.


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Will the Department of Manpower and Immigration consider offering, as part of its 1972 retraining program, immersion courses in (a) computer programming (b) public administration (c) data processing (d) marketing (e) community planning (f) recreational leadership (g) home economics (h) secretarial science?
2.	To date, has the Department of Manpower and Immigration in conjunction with the provinces discussed the possibility of offer-
1042

March 22, 1972
Questions
ing these courses as part of the retraining program and if not for what reasons?
3.	What criteria are used to determine what courses the Department of Manpower and Immigration will offer?


Mr.   Ray. Perrault@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: 1. As part of its 1972 training program the Department of Manpower and Immigration is considering offering courses which provide skills in the areas listed in Part 1.
2.	The Department has continuing dialogue with the provinces concerning the selection of courses to be purchased including those areas listed in Part 1. Training requirements are also discussed at the meetings of the Federal-Provincial Joint Committee established in each province to assess Manpower needs in accordance with Section 13 of the Adult Occupational Training Act.
3.	The basic criteria used to determine the courses the Department will purchase includes the following: (1) Legislative requirements: (a) The course must provide occupational training, the purpose of which is to provide a person with skills required for an occupation or to increase his skill proficiency therein, (b) The course must not be one which provides instruction for university credit, (c) The course must not provide more than 52 weeks of full time instruction nor 1820 hrs. of part-time instruction, (d) The training must be provided in Canada. (2) Labour market requirements: (a) There must be a demand in the foreseeable future for the skills provided by the training.


SIR GEORGE WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY COMPUTER DAMAGE
Mr. Robinson: How many of the students from Caribbean countries attending Canadian universities on CIDA training awards paid by the Canadian Government took part in the Sir George Williams University computer damage?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: None.


CBC-COST OF SALARIES, ETC., 1971
Mr. Orlikow: What was the total cost to the CBC in 1971 of (a) regular wages and salaries (b) overtime paid to NABET employees?


Gérard Pelletier: I am
informed by the CBC as follows: (a) $18,240,039; (b) $3,577,549. "


CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP IN INTER-AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Is the government considering membership in any interAmerican institution other than the Pan American Health Organization, the Inter-American Development Bank and the InterAmerican Institute of Agricultural Sciences?
2.	Is ultimate membership in the Organization of American States contemplated in the near future?
(Mr. Yewchuk.]


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes, Canada is now a full member of three of the six specialized organizations of the Organization of American States; the Pan American Institute of Geography and History; The Pan American Health Organization; and the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences. In addition, Canada is already a member of the InterAmerican Statistical Institute, the Inter-American Centre of Tax Administrators, the Centre for Latin American Monetary Studies and the Postal Union of the Americas and Spain. Membership in a number of other inter-American institutions, including the Inter-American Indian Institute and the Inter-American Development Bank is being considered. The recent accreditation of a Canadian Permanent Observer Mission to the OAS entitles Canada to observer status in all of the organs, agencies and entities directly dependent on the OAS.
2. Not necessarily. The purpose of establishing a formal link with the OAS as explained in the penultimate paragraph of the government's policy paper on Latin America was to "permit Canada's relations with the countries of Latin America to develop rapidly and, by improving Canadian knowledge and understanding of those countries and their regional institutions, prepare for a better-informed and more useful Canadian participation as a full member of the OAS should Canada, at some future date, opt for full participation."


ISSUANCE OF CHARGEX OR CREDIT CARDS
Mr. Robinson: Does the government have information on how many chargex or credit cards have been issued by each of the chartered banks and, if so (a) how many have been issued (b) of these, how many were solicited by the bank concerned?


John Napier Turner: In so far as
the Department of Finance is concerned this information is not available.


PROHIBITION OF UNSOLICITED CREDIT CARDS
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the advisability of requiring banks to desist from forwarding unsolicited credit cards?


John Napier Turner: The present practice of the chartered banks is not to forward new credit cards unless they are solicited.


DETERMINATION OF BANKING POLICY FOR CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Robinson: Does the government determine the banking policy of the chartered banks and (a) if so, through what agency (b) if not, for what reason?


John Napier Turner: The government through the agency of the Bank of Canada determines national monetary policy. Subject to this overall influence on the scale of their operations and certain specific limitations contained in the Bank Act, chartered
March 22, 1972

banks determine the particular loans and investments in which they will employ their resources.


CREATION OF ADDITIONAL BANKING INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of allowing additional banking institutions to be created in order to make the banking business more competitive?


John Napier Turner: It is the
policy of the government to encourage the establishment of new banks.


INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS IN BANKS
Mr. Robinson: Does the government have information on how much money is used by banks in their business of banking upon which they do not pay any interest to the deposit holder and, if so, what is this amount?


John Napier Turner: The returns of assets and liabilities made by banks pursuant to the Bank Act do not classify deposits on the basis of whether or not interest is payable to the depositors.


ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Mr. Robinson: Will the government take action to process the applications of illegal immigrants to Canada or to order them out of the country at their own expense?


Raymond J. Perrault: When a person who is in Canada illegally is reported to the department or otherwise apprehended appropriate action is taken under the Immigration Act as quickly as possible having regard to available resources and due processes of law. Wherever the law permits, deportation is carried out at other than public expense.


NON-IMMIGRANT REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Robinson: Will the government ensure that anyone entering Canada as a tourist deposits sufficient funds on entry to guarantee passage back to his country of origin?


Raymond J. Perrault: Because the vast majority of the more than 38 million people who visit Canada every year leave within the prescribed time, it is not considered practical or necessary to require the taking of deposits from all visitors to protect against the relatively small number who abuse the terms of their entry. However, an individual's ability to effect his departure at his own expense is taken into consideration in the case of all visitors granted admission. If the examining officer has any doubts in this respect, the Immigration Act provides for the taking of a bond to guarantee against the expenditure of public funds on his behalf.
Questions


&quot;LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM PROJECTS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	On what date was the final project under the Local Initiatives Program approved in the Province of Saskatchewan?
2.	How much money was allocated to Saskatchewan by that date?
3.	Have all the provinces been informed that there are no longer any funds available and, if not, which provinces still have not used up the funds available?
4.	What was the percentage of the total funds available to each province?
5.	On what date was the Town of Sturgis informed that its project was rejected?
6.	Have any projects been accepted in any province after the final date for receipt of applications and, if so, in which provinces were they accepted?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have the reply to starred question No. 317 here and am perfectly prepared to read it, but it is rather lengthy and I wonder whether hon. members would prefer that it simply be tabled in Hansard as read?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer above referred to is as follows:]
1.	March 8, 1972.
2.	Records indicate that as of March 8, 1972, $4,224,397 has been allocated to approved projects in Saskatchewan. That figure is subject to change as adjustments are sometimes made when the contract is negotiated after final approval.
3.	Provinces have not been informed that there are no longer any funds available as they are not involved in the administration or approval of projects, with the exception that they review municipal projects. The administration and approval of all projects is handled through regional offices of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
4.	As of March 17, 1972, the percentage of total funds
available to each province was:	%
Newfoundland	6.6
Nova Scotia	7.0
Prince Edward Island	1.4
New Brunswick	6.2
Quebec	42.3
Ontario	14.8
Manitoba	3.6
Saskatchewan	2.7
Alberta	5.3
Northwest Territories	0.7
British Columbia	9.1
Yukon Territory	0.3
5.	February 14, 1972.
6.	No.

March 22, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


COST OF GOVERNMENT PROMOTIONAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Gleave: 1.	(a) What was the total cost of the advertising promotional program concerning "Assumed Mail" (b) in how many publications was the advertisement inserted?
2.	(a) To date, what was the cost of the advertising program for the current issue of Canada Savings Bonds (b) how long will the advertising campaign continue and what will be the final cost?
3.	(a) What was the cost of the advertising program in regard to the "New Design of Canada Cheques" (b) in how many publications was the advertisement inserted (c) what was the cost in each publication?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I ask that notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When is it intended that the House will proceed with the family income security legislation, Bill C-170, and does the government consider this bill to be urgent legislation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the government considers this to be very important legislation. It will be up to the government to decide when the bill will be proceeded with after discussion by the House leader with other members of the government and spokesmen for the other parties concerning when there will be available House time.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, what is the status of the negotiations with the provinces, particularly the province of Quebec, on the latest proposals relative to the government's plans to proceed with this legislation?


John Carr Munro: The suggested formula set out in the Prime Minister's letter to Premier Bourassa received a favourable reaction from the Quebec government, and I would
(Mr. Speaker.)
expect that the negotiations that follow will come to a successful conclusion.



REASON FOR TEMPORARY EMBARGO ON ISSUANCE OF OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION PERMITS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of his announcement in Calgary that he is placing a temporary embargo on the issue of oil and gas exploration permits in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I wish to ask the minister whether the purpose of this temporary embargo is to apply pressure on oil and gas companies to make a decision with respect to the construction of oil and gas pipelines down the Mackenzie valley, or is there some other purpose which the minister has in mind for this temporary embargo?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should supplement the hon. member's question by indicating that it will also apply to the east and west offshore areas, including Hudson Bay. For some time my department and Indian Affairs and Northern Development have had under way discussions with representatives of the oil industry on the amendment to the oil and gas regulations under which oil and gas permits and leases are held. The consultations have now been completed and I am putting a recommendation forward to cabinet in order to amend the regulations. Since we have arrived at a conclusion of this matter it seems sensible not to issue any more permits under the old regulations but rather to put on a moratorium until the new regulations are in effect, which we anticipate will be some time this summer. It is not related in any way to the Mackenzie valley pipeline.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact several ministers of the government have indicated support for granting a right of way for the construction of both oil and gas pipelines down the Mackenzie valley, may I ask the minister whether he would undertake to make a statement at an early date regarding the conditions which would apply for the granting of such permission, particularly with reference to whether or not these pipelines would be under foreign ownership and control, whether they would be common carriers, who would set the rates for the transport of oil and gas, and other particulars which hon. members ought to have before any commitments are made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would remind the hon. member that over a year ago guidelines for the construction of a northern pipeline were set out by my colleague, the Minister of
March 22, 1972

Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As to some of the specific details to which the hon. member has referred, I would not anticipate that we would be in a position to entertain applications with regard to the pipeline and therefore be able to define some of the criteria until about the end of the current calendar year. We are now in the process of completing studies, both environmental and economic, on the requirements which the government of Canada, through the National Energy Board, should impose on the construction of a northern pipeline. All the characteristics to which the hon. gentleman has referred have not yet been defined. As they are, certainly I will be glad to inform the House of them from time to time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the minister's statement in Calgary that no applications for such pipelines could be considered until 1973, may I ask the minister if he would undertake to assure the House that prior to any commitments being made the House would first of all be acquainted with the ecological report being prepared by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and also with the energy report from his own department which we have been promised for the last two and a half years?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the hon. gentleman for assuming that I will be in office at that particular time. I would be quite happy to make certain that this particular information is made available to the House because, of course, it will be available to applicants for determining their applications.



RESEARCH ON METHODS OF OIL TRANSPORTATION TO MEET ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Is his department doing any research on methods of oil transportation, that is, carriage of oil, to meet the environmental problems? Is any special project under way in this regard?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is done on a broader basis than just by this department. It is a co-operative arrangement with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Of course, as the hon. member knows, private industries have also been very much engaged in this area. I think I would have to get a little further detail as to which particular entity has carried out which particular research.



MANPOWER


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In connection with the Local Initiatives Program, was the announcement last week by Quebec Municipal Affairs Minister Maurice Tessier of a $5 million injection correct and does the Minister of Labour intend to make a statement on this shortly?


Mr. Speaker:: The second part of the hon. member's question seems to be in order, and the minister may answer it. In the first part of his question, the hon. member asks for confirmation or denial of a statement made outside the House and for that reason, the question is not in order.


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that under consideration.



AUTO PARTS-REPORTED U.S. DIRECTIVE TO ENFORCE   REGULATIONS ON SHIPMENTS WITH SEVERITY-USE OF DISC PROGRAM BY AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the government looked into the suggestion made yesterday that the United States Secretary of the Treasury has issued a directive to customs officials telling them to enforce regulations "with considerable severity" in connection with auto parts shipments? If so, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether or not this has taken place?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to confirm whether that is in effect what has been said in the United States. I do know it was in the papers this morning. I have not been able to confirm whether that is the position of the United States government.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated last week that the government hoped United States auto producers would not make use of DISC. Has the government received any specific assurances to that effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister did deal with this supplementary question when it was first asked, and he indicated that there had been no specific promises.



GOVERNMENT PROPERTY


Right Hon. I. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, on February 23 I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning the resolution passed unanimously by the legislature of British Columbia in connection with 38 acres of Jericho DND land. He said at that time that he

March 22, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
would look into the matter and would also advise whether or not the request of the British Columbia legislature would receive attention.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence perhaps I could take notice of that inquiry, follow up the question of the remaining Jericho Beach properties and report to the right hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after all, just a month has gone by since the question was asked. It is a matter of great importance to the people of Vancouver. They want to know whether this is going to be a big melon or pork barrel operation. Will the minister let me have an answer as to what the government intends to do-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -without putting it off again in this manner?


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


Mrs. Maclnnis:: I have a question-


John George Diefenbaker: Surely, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I believe the right hon. gentleman wishes to ask a supplementary, or perhaps he is rising on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had asked a question. I have found the minister usually very loquacious and alway willing to answer. I repeat that this is a matter of deep concern. I ask him whether any decision has been made by the government and, if not, why not?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the reason I did not respond was that I understood the right hon. gentleman had been ruled out. of order. I would just point out to him that a decision was taken several years ago and arrangements made with the city of Vancouver whereby a portion of the Jericho Beach property, that closest to the water, would be made available for public park purposes and the balance of the property would be rezoned and would be available for disposal by the Crown in consideration of the Department of National Defence moving its operations from Jericho Beach to Chilliwack. As to the actual status of this matter now, I have not been following with the same active interest in the last several weeks as I was previously matters within the responsibility of the Department of National Defence, but I will endeavour to find out the current status of the matter for the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Please do, because it looks like a pork barrel.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You ought to know.



WELFARE


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last week in reply to my question the minister promised to look into British Columbia's Bill 49 which gives complete power to the provincial welfare minister to decide who shall get social assistance in the province and who shall not and which wipes out any chance of appeal. I should like to ask the minister again whether this bill violates the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan which declares that anyone in need shall be eligible for social assistance? Has he looked into the matter and determined whether this is the case?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the matter. I am still waiting for independent legal advice from an officer of the Crown as to whether, from a strictly legal point of view, this bill contravenes the Canada Assistance Plan. I hope to have that advice by the end of the week.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I should like to ask what steps the minister would propose in the meantime to ensure that people in British Columbia who are in need receive social assistance?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the bill has not yet been passed by the British Columbia legislature. I have had no complaints of specific cases where social assistance has been denied as a result of the recent action taken by the British Columbia government.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he has knowledge of complaints by the Toronto police that they have to ask for extradition orders in order to deal with unwanted immigrants because it is impossible to get deportation orders from the immigration authorities?


Abram Ernest Epp: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that situation but I shall inquire and give an answer to the hon. member.



PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY POINTS FOR FARMERS FOLLOWING SALE OF FEDERAL GRAIN LTD. TO WHEAT POOLS

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat
March 22, 1972

Board. Has the Canadian Wheat Board made any decision on an additional alternative delivery point for farmers faced with the dissappearance of their original alternative delivery point because of the sale of Federal Grain Limited to the prairie wheat pools?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Canadian Wheat Board to give quick consideration to this situation but at the moment I do not have a reply from them.


Jack Burnett Murta: Since this is a very urgent matter for the farmers affected, I should like to ask the minister specifically when an announcement will be made by the Wheat Board on whether farmers will be able to deliver to an alternative delivery point?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that the Wheat Board would announce this as soon as they have made a decision.



ALBERTA FEED GRAINS COMMISSION-CO-ORDINATION OF EFFORTS AND POLICIES WITH FEDERAL AGENCY

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the Alberta government has moved to set up a feed grains commission, can the minister tell the House whether discussions have taken place between the Alberta government and himself or the Canadian Wheat Board on how the two agencies will co-ordinate their efforts and policies?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions about the general problem of lower prices for feed grains. I am not aware of any discussion about the actual operation of the proposed commission and co-ordination. The announcement by the Alberta government does not give any details about how it will operate.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Can the minister inform the House when or if he is going to release the study on grain handling and transportation and whether it has anything to say about the over-all efficiency of having a Canadian Wheat Board, a federal feed grain agency and a provincial feed grain agency all involved in the marketing of grain at the same time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the second part of the hon. member's supplementary is argumentative.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Can he indicate whether he has received from certain provinces a request to amend the Criminal Code in order to allow those wishing to do so to establish within their boundaries an off-track betting system or any other gambling activities, particularly casinos? If so, can the minister tell us what the response of the government has been?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been some requests and discussions with provincial ministers about this subject. We have indicated to them a willingness to look at the matter and to develop some early legislative solutions concerning it, without being able to give any precise dates at this time for that action.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice assure the House that legislation to amend the Criminal Code on the matters I have mentioned will be introduced during this session so that the provinces may be allowed to implement their objectives?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is likely that this can be done in the present session. I understand that some provinces now consider it an urgent matter although I believe they took a different view when the legislation touching on this subject was before the House only a year or two ago.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the stated policy of the minister and of his predecessor has been that there should be no additional commercialism in the national parks, has that policy been changed recently, or is the Esso Lake Louise project a special case?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had looked into the matter, he would have realized that the Lake Louise project has been in operation for many years and that commercial activities in that area have been going on for more than 40 years.


Mark Willson Rose: Is there any particular federal participation in the Esso Lake Louise project? If so, what is the nature of this federal participation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is no direct participation from the federal government. It is a site that has been developed over several years to receive facilities. We have called for tenders on two occasions for this development
1048

March 22, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
and the only offer received is the one we are now considering. The final decision has not yet been taken.
, English]


Mr. Hees:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that we have gone through nearly half the question period and we are not moving very quickly. I would hope there would be a tendency or. the part of hon. members to limit their supplementaries and, indeed, their questions, to make their questions shorter and the replies shorter also.


Mark Willson Rose: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since a decision has not been finally reached, would the minister answer the question whether there have been federal funds expended on the project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. Perhaps the minister might reply to the hon. member's supplementary briefly.



LAKE LOUISE PRO JECT-OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSE TO DEBATE

John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The answer given by the minister just now would indicate that finality has been brought about in this connection. On the basis of the objections that have been raised as a consequence of the various meetings held in this connection, does he not have some doubts now as to whether this project should be proceeded with? If he has not, will he assure the House that this House will have the opportunity of debating this project which, if it is carried out, means the end of the whole principle of national parks for Canadians?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we had public hearings for the first time in the history of the national parks and thus all Canadians had the opportunity to express their views. I am appearing at present before the committee of the House which is considering the estimates of my department and if hon. members, including the right hon. member for Prince Albert, wish to ask questions, I would be glad to see them in that committee.
As for myself, I say again that no decision has been taken yet, because the government felt that it would be advisable to hold public hearings before doing anything.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I now ask the minister this question. If the government finally decides to go ahead, will it give this House, not a committee, the right to determine whether this should be done?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: A committee means nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
{Mr. Chretien.]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am terribly surprised to hear the right hon. member talking about a committee in the way he just did.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all. A committee means nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is apparently a matter of interest to hon. members and there appears to be a desire on the part of hon. members to ask supplementaries. I will recognize the hon. member for Selkirk and a few other hon. members for short supplementaries, I hope, then we will try to go to another subject.



LAKE LOUISE PROJECT-BASIS FOR EXPENDITURE IN PROVIDING SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As public hearings are still going on with respect to this project and since the minister indicated to the House that no decision has yet been taken, on what basis has the federal government spent over $1 million in providing a sewer and water system-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is argument.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Crowfoot on a supplementary.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think the hon. member should travel a bit and go there, because he will see that there are many motels in the area which have been there for many years and for which services were provided in the area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously debate. Since this is obviously a matter of interest to hon. members, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that has not been answered. Will a piece of legislation be put before the House which will detail the $29 million or $39 million to be spent in the national park in the area of Lake Louise?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this Lake Louise project was submitted to the public several years ago. We invited people to make suggestions, and the only one received is that concerning the development now under discussion. We are considering the problem. We held public hearings, and the government will make a decision in due time. We would like hon. members as well as the Alberta government to express their views on that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
March 22, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, A number of hon. members are seeking to ask supplementaries. I will come to them in a moment. At this time I will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he tell the House whether there have been discussions with the government of the province of Quebec concerning setting up new special areas within the province of Quebec and if so, whether Montmagny has been or could be considered as such?


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member that in the past the Chair has disallowed questions of hon. members as to whether one region or another will be designated. I do not feel such a question is in order. However, since the question has been put, the hon. minister may reply briefly, but I hope there will be no tendency to consider this as a precedent.


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the reply will be very brief. We do have discussions under way. As concerns Montmagny, although I cannot reveal anything at the present stage, it is among the regions which are being considered.



STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice with respect to the implementation of the third report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments. Would the minister advise the House whether the cabinet directive referred to by his predecessor relating to departmental directives and guidelines has been issued and, if so, would he advise the House of the nature of that directive?


Mr. Forreslall:: Put it on the order paper.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The cabinet has directed that all directives or guidelines are to be submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice, who will advise the issuing authority whether they are in conflict with any provision of the act or the regulations to which they relate, whether they are essentially legislative in nature, whether their subject matter should be incorporated in regulations and, if so, whether there is authority to make such regulations.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH



USE OF NURSES IN CERTAIN COMMUNITIES WITH NO DOCTORS

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the serious shortage of doctors and the fact that in Canada nurses are serving the socially underprivileged where physicians are not willing to go and are considered qualified to do so, particularly in the north, but are not considered qualified to render these services to other segments of the population, has the minister any plans to relieve this serious situation by using nurses and extending their services to communities now without doctors?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have had a program along these lines in operation for some time. We fully intend, and in fact are doing so, to direct more of our resources toward this particular objective.



NATIONAL PARKS


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a short non-controversial supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Briefly, can he advise the House when he expects to start making the long-promised Trent Valley national park a reality?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that is already a reality.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if anything has been done to make this waterway a national park, it is the best kept secret from the people of the area that has ever been perpetrated.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is unaware, it is probably because he does not visit his riding often enough.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am in my area very often. I know what is going on there far better than the minister knows what is going on in his constituency. He is giving the type of answer that this government tries to get away with far too often.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now that we have settled that matter, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.
25104-8J
Inquiries of the Ministry ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY

March 22, 1972



PARTICIPATION WITH UNITED STATES IN STUDY ON POSSIBLE YEAR-ROUND OPERATION

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question takes us back to the great Canadian winter. It is to the Minister of Transport. Does the government plan to contribute to and participate in a proposed United States study on keeping the St. Lawrence Seaway open the year round, and has a request been made in that connection by the United States government?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware no official request has been received, but we have been participants in some of these studies and most recently some of our officials attended the last seminar or forum that was held on this matter.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON LE DAIN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING HEROIN-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL REPORT

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Health and Welfare. When will he be making a statement about the recommendation in the treatment portion of the Le Dain report to give a semi-legal status to heroin, and when does he expect the final report to be available?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first part of the hon. member's question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must point out to hon. members that there are less than ten minutes remaining before the end of the question period. I will not charge to the question period the last minute or so when hon. members appeared to be enjoying themselves. I hope the question of privilege will be short.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I got the usual type of answer from the government this afternoon. The minister has just told me that they are now making plans for the Trent Valley park. Nobody in the area knows about these plans. Nobody has been consulted. The government is obviously doing nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: It is just an election promise which means nothing whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Go to your riding.


John Carr Munro: If I may conclude my answer, Mr. Speaker, I hope to clean up and make a statement to the House shortly on those aspects of the Le Dain commission report

I have not already dealt with. As to the latter part of the hon. member's question, when he says final report I take it he is referring to the final report of the Le Dain commission. If that is the case, my information is that the chairman has indicated he will be presenting a further report on another component but the final report will not be ready until much later.



MANPOWER


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister completed his investigation of the local initiatives program grant to the Process Church of the Final Judgment in Toronto? If so, is he in a position to inform the House with regard to his findings?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did look into the matter, but I cannot add anything beyond what was said on a previous occasion in the House. The people involved in the project had the recommendation of a lot of serious people. The offices of the local initiatives program gave the grant in good faith to people who seemed to be engaged in doing some good work.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the Prime Minister also investigate or have reviewed the application of the Salvation Army in the hope that the request of this most worthy organization can be approved?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are many, many worthy organizations which submitted requests and which had to be turned down. As the House knows, the government allocated $150 million to these projects. Some 6,000 or 7,000 were accepted. Perhaps as many had to be turned down because of a lack of funds. We feel that the $150 million is a good start. If the people approve of this program, we will study the results and perhaps consider in future parliaments a renewal of such a program.



PROVISION OF SUMMER EMPLOYMENT-CONSULTATION WITH INDUSTRY AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS LEADING TO INITIATION OF JOB-CREATING PROGRAMS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. It has to do with recent alarming reports that there will be some 100,000 more young people in the summer labour force this year, expanding the young labour force this summer to 1,300,000. In view of the inability of present government programs to meet this crushing job demand, can the minister inform the House whether there are ongoing consultations with industry and other levels of government in order that
March 22, 1972

the government might follow the lead of companies such as Imperial Oil and the Royal Bank and initiate special job-creating programs for young people this summer?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this kind of consultations take place every year and they do not particularly come under the responsibility of my department, but I know however that they take place. The only consultations we have had ourselves, that is to say through those people who submit their projects to us, concern the Opportunities for Youth Program.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact the minister indicated earlier that some 20,000 opportunities for youth projects have now been submitted and only a fraction of these will be accepted, is there any specific program underway to consult with other agencies that might well implement some of these very worth-while projects?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
* *
*



MANPOWER


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
The Quebec Municipal Affairs Minister having confirmed to me that an additional amount of $5 million had been granted to local initiative projects in the province, would the right hon. gentleman elaborate on the reply he gave me last Friday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to which confirmation the hon. member refers. He might have received an information of which I may be unaware, but if he wishes to give me notice of his question, I would study it further.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. It has to do specifically with the 50 civilian employees to be laid off on March 30 at CFB Chatham but also the hundreds of others at national defence bases across Canada who will be laid off on March 30 because obviously the department has run out of money. Would the minister give some assurance that these people will be eligible for re-employment on or shortly after April 1? I would have directed my question to the Minister of National Defence but it is so long since he has been here that I have forgotten what he looks like.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, had the question been directed to the Minister of National Defence it would have been both useful and procedurally correct. I will bring the question to his attention.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINES- CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BEFORE PERMIT ISSUED

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to an earlier question about northern pipelines. Since there is no specific responsibility on the National Energy Board to consider the environmental or social effects of any northern pipeline, nor to hold public hearings, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he intends to issue any new instructions, or at least clarifications, to the National Energy Board so that prior to considering any permit these factors will be fully taken into account?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that he is mistaken in his interpretation of the statute. This is one of the general public interests that the board has to take into account. Certainly the board will have additional criteria available to it for the purpose of hearings which, as I indicated earlier, would not commence until after 1972.


David Anderson: While I agree with the minister that this is one of the general interests, I was talking about specific responsibility. May I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether, in view of the fact there is no specific responsibility in this area on the National Energy Board to hold such hearings, his department, or the minister himself, will issue instructions that such hearings be held?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, under the Northwest Territories Act, we are authorized to hold hearings and we shall do so if necessary. However, we shall keep in contact at all times with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
* *
*



RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT-SUGGESTED DISCUSSION WITH PRESIDENT NIXON DURING VISIT TO OTTAWA

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In the talks that the Prime Minister will be having with President Nixon during his visit to Canada in the middle of

March 22, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
April, will he place high on the agenda the suggestion that the United States co-operate fully with Canada and other countries in re-establishing the international wheat agreement that was allowed to collapse in 1967?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will certainly take that into consideration, Mr. Speaker. When I met President Nixon in Washington for the first time that item was high on the agenda and I shall consider it again this time. But as I said to the House yesterday, the agenda has not yet been finally agreed to by the two countries.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the large number of municipal projects involving railroad grade crossings that are being held up for lack of funds, would the minister consider increasing the ceiling on assistance to municipalities through the railroad grade crossing fund?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is equipped with e.s.p., but I can tell him that I had a lengthy meeting on this subject this morning in preparation for the visit next week of the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. I can say that in principle the answer is yes. We are trying to find a formula and will continue consulting with the municipalities as to what is the best one.



RAILWAY LINE RELOCATION IN URBAN CENTRES- POSSIBLE NEW POLICY

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Transport whether his considerations involve the early announcement of a new policy on assistance for rail line relocations in many urban centres across Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I spent a good part of an hour talking about Regina this morning, and I am sure that is the area in which the hon. member is most interested. This is one of the problems we are seeking to solve-the difference between a straight grade crossing and a realignment program.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can he inform the House whether any progress was
(Mr. Southam.]
made in the recent discussions between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and NABET?


Gérard Pelletier: The only thing I can tell the House, Mr. Speaker, is that the meeting between the union officials and those of the CBC took place yesterday. I was able to talk with the CBC directors, for whom the results of that meeting were good and permitted to foresee an improvement in the situation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the seriousness of the matter, would the Secretary of State advise whether the government has any specific proposal that it is prepared to present in order to effect an immediate settlement of this very serious dispute?


Gérard Pelletier: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member repeat his question? I missed three words and I am not sure that I did get it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I was inquiring whether, in view of the seriousness of the matter, and since we all want an early settlement, the government has any specific proposal that it is prepared to present which will effect an immediate settlement of this matter.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I find that question astonishing. Indeed the opposition, and it means well I suppose, is always raising objections, always suspecting us of interfering in negotiations between Crown agencies, and I am surprised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. There is obviously a debate now between the hon. minister and the hon. member.
Is the hon. member rising to ask a supplementary? We have just about reached the end of the question period but perhaps he might be allowed to ask a supplementary.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a supplementary but on a point of order. There have been successive questions regarding the various issues in contention and under negotiation, but the government seems to want to keep them out of the House and in darkness. On behalf of the people of Canada it is our right as an opposition to pursue this question in order to ascertain whether the government is moving to create a climate of positive action so this dispute can be settled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that is a point of order. I would think the hon. member is debating the matter in the same way that the minister was. I think the minister was out of order and the hon. member is also out of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has already ruled that there is no point of order.
March 22, 1972


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then on another point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot on a point of order.	.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know that the Speaker is annoyed with this particular point of order, but I have sat and watched question periods proceed and it seems to be Your Honour's position that there must be progress made in the question period. When a series of questions is directed to a minister on a given subject, Your Honour seems to feel that after a while the matter should be dropped and the House should proceed to another subject. The rules provide that a question must be urgent, that it should be of national importance and that it should be non-argumentative. When questions are asked on a particular subject matter the Speaker should allow them if they are urgent and of national importance, and that is all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously wrong. The practice is that supplementaries are entirely at the discretion of the Chair. That is a long-established practice.



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM RUSSIA

Mr. Speaker:: Before we call orders of the day, hon. members might want the Chair to bring to their attention the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a group of very distinguished visitors in the persons of a parliamentary delegation from the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. led by Mr. Nikolai Tikhonov, Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of all hon. members I welcome these very distinguished visitors. I express the hope that they are having a pleasant and interesting visit in Canada and that they will take back with them to their country very pleasant remembrances of their visit with us. We do want to express our pleasure at having them in the House of Commons of Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot on a point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am afraid Your Honour misunderstood the exact point I was attempting to make in my point of order. I was not dealing with the question of supplementaries but with questions being put on a given subject matter by members of the different parties in the House. It is not the duty of the Speaker to rule that progress must be made and that we must move on to another subject. If the Speaker, whether Your Honour or some future Speaker, continues to rule in this way, he will lay himself open to
Inquiries of the Ministry
the charge of bailing out a minister who was being attacked on a particular subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would not want to accuse Your Honour of doing that, but if you place yourself in the position of having to rule whether enough questions have been asked on a given subject matter you do lay yourself open to that charge. I would not want to see the Chair placed in that difficult position.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. member that I am quite prepared to take my responsibilities at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Winona Grace MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope our system is not on trial at the present time. Does the hon. member rise on a question of privilege?


Winona Grace MacInnis: I rise on a point of order. It is not the same one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: This is a point of order with which I believe the Chair will find no difficulty in dealing. It arises from an answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, an answer which is not in accord with the facts. If the minister has the ability to find the mistake in his answer, maybe he can apoligize to the House at his next appearance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has called orders of the day. The point of order is not correctly taken.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mahoney (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-169, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: Will those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1972
Explosives Act EXPLOSIVES ACT

Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-7, to amend the Explosives Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first amendment to the Explosives Act since 1954. Its purpose is two-fold. First, it is designed to tighten up the provisions of the present law, with regard to the management, control and disposition of explosives in the light of various events which have occurred both in Canada and elsewhere involving the use of explosives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would invite those who wish to carry on conversations to do so behind the curtains. I know that some hon. members are interested in the comments of the minister on this important bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The second purpose is to modernize some of the terminology in the statute so as to take account of technical changes which have occurred in the field, and also to take account of certain legal requirements which have been found, over a period of time, to be necessary.
With respect to the desirability of increasing the strictness of the controls which presently exist, members of the House will, I imagine, require no conviction. They will be aware of the increasing use by violent elements not only in our community but in other communities in western society, of the kind of explosives controlled by the Act we are considering, sometimes in support of political goals, or occasionally, as regrettably occurred in my own city of Toronto last weekend, for ends which do not appear to be related to political purposes. Those who were members of the House during the 27th parliament will recall how close such acts of terrorism came to us-within several hundred feet of the Chamber, as a matter of fact-when a deranged person attempted to introduce explosives within these walls.
As I have said, the purpose of the amendment is to increase the degree of control which presently exists over explosives. It would be an offence to abandon an explosive or to be in possession of an explosive which had not been legally acquired. A comparison might be drawn with the amendment the House considered during the first session of this parliament, the amendment to the Criminal Code dealing with handguns and similar weapons. The government is under no illusion that the problem will be solved merely by making a change in a criminal statute, but it is possible for parliament to create a legal system whereby possession of such potentially dangerous items can be made subject to the scrutiny and control of the authorities, especially of the police. The government recognizes the concern felt by all Canadians with regard to the need for regulating the sale and use of explosives based on recent events in various parts of the country which have indicated a change in attitude toward acts of terrorism.
While the present act concerns itself mainly with public safety, the amendments place greater emphasis on the control, purchase possession and security against theft of explosives. The amendments are designed to give the government of Canada a measure of control over explosives which will be recognized by all authorities as stringent but workable. It is fashioned, not to complement existing provincial statutes, but to develop further the kinds of safeguards needed for public safety, production and use of explosives.
In order to establish more effective control over the sale, purchase and possession of explosives, it is recommended that section 4(n) of the act be amended to give the Governor in Council power to make regulations respecting the sale, purchase and possession of explosives. We intend to recommend that the sale of explosives be restricted to: 1. a person with a valid provincial licence authorizing the storage and use of explosives on a mine or quarry operating under provincial jurisdiction; 2. a person with a valid licence issued pursuant to the Explosives Act for the manufacture, sale or use of explosives; 3. a person with a valid purchase and possession permit.
Recommendations one and two will account for most of the explosives normally consumed, while recommendation number three will cover the balance of the explosives purchased, mainly by the small intermittent user. Recommendations one and two are already reasonably covered by existing federal and provincial licences while recommendation number three is entirely new. In the latter case, the purchaser will be required, pursuant to amendments to the regulations, to complete a form of application giving such personal information as name, address, social security number and so on and such general information as location, duration and intended use of the explosives purchased. Provided the licensed distributor personally knows or can positively identify the purchaser, he may then complete the transaction.
A purchase and possession permit will be valid for a specific period not exceeding 90 days, and will contain detailed requirements to be observed by the permittee for the secure storage and transportation of the explosives. For identification, the explosives will be marked with the permit number and the purchaser will be required to keep the permit available and produce it, on demand, to an inspector or peace officer.
We also intend to recommend regulations which will place the onus of responsibility for the safety and security of explosives on the person who has purchased and is in possession of them, rather than on the distributor which is presently the case.
The storage of explosives on mines and quarries is exempted under Section 2(h)(i) of the act. This section was introduced in order to avoid duplication over the use of explosives m mines and quarries by federal and provincial authorities. However, it does present problems. For example, we recently adopted a new standard for explosives magazines which should greatly increase the security against theft of explosives under federal jurisdiction, but to be effective tl e same standards must apply to the

March 22, 1972

storage of explosives under the provincial jurisdiction as well.
Another problem we encounter with the interpretation of 2(h)(i) is that many companies who operate both a quarry where explosives are subject to provincial control, and a construction company, where the explosives are subject to federal control, feel they may transfer explosives from their quarry operation to their various construction sites. We feel that 2(h)(i) is too general and should be amended to "a place at or in a mine or quarry for the storage of explosives for the exclusive use on a mine or quarry in a province in which provision is made by the law of such province for the efficient inspection of explosives stored and used therein".
I may mention that my department controls explosives through the issuing of licences and permits. There are presently 55 manufacturers of explosives located in Canada, over 500 licensed dealers and about 1,500 magazines. Moreover, during 1970, some 800 permits were issued for the importation of explosives of all kinds, and about 400 permits for transportation by road. To perform these duties, the Explosives Division has three regional offices located in Vancouver for B.C. and Yukon, in Calgary for the Prairies and Northwest Territories, and in Halifax for the Atlantic provinces. The Ottawa office is responsible for the general administration of the act and the inspection work in Ontario and Quebec. The present Explosives Act applies to the manufacture, testing, sale, storage, importation and transportation by road and private railways.
The proposed amendments to the Explosives Act do not include any major changes to our present approach to consumer-type explosives. We feel that the present system of being able to deny authorization to any type of explosive that does not meet certain standards is the most effective means of control. We do recognize, however, that public concern has been expressed about sales distribution and transportation of some of the so-called consumer-type explosives in Canada. I shall find it very interesting when the bill reaches the committee to hear some further discussion concerning the extent to which the regime of control over consumer explosives should be changed.
More precise requirements may be made, under the authority of Section 4(f) of the present act, to advise the public of the authorization procedure and where they may obtain information concerning the list of authorized explosives. The act, as it already exists, is extremely flexible in dealing with consumer-type explosives and the above change will make the public more aware of the control being exercised. We do not know of any other country with more effective control or rigid enforcement of this type of explosive than we have in Canada. Many of the consumer-type explosives, which are commonly available in all other western countries, are prohibited in Canada.
For information, the following is a resume of some of the consumer-type explosives which are not authorized in Canada but which are readily available in the U.S.A., Great Britain, Germany, France, and other countries: First, Cigarette loads or cigarette plugs. These small explosive charges are designed for insertion in cigarettes
Explosives Act
or cigars which will cause them to explode after the victim takes a few puffs. Second, exploding matches. These are made up to resemble ordinary book matches and are designed to explode after a certain delay, usually about the time they are in a position to light a cigarette. Third, sparkling matches. These also resemble the normal book matches but send out a shower of sparks. Fourth, tear gas pens and launchers. These resemble a pen and are supposedly for protection against muggers, but are more commonly used as offensive weapons or as practical jokes. Fifth, ammunition for miniature tie clip, cufflink or key chain pistols. This is a violent type of blank ammunition made up for use in a novelty item. Sixth, auto jokers, auto alarms and so on. These are supposedly designed as burglar alarms but are really for a practical joke. When wired to the ignition system of a car they operate with a loud screeching whistle followed by copious emission of smoke and a loud explosion. Seventh, stinks bombs. The name, I believe, is self-explanatory. Eighth, exploding golf balls. These are designed to explode and emit a cloud of smoke on impact. Ninth, Cherry bombs, M-80 Salutes, Silver Salutes, and so on. These are very violent firecrackers which annually cause serious accidents and some deaths in the United States. They are considered far too violent and contain an excessive charge of a composition we prohibit. Tenth, various throw-down or step-on torpedoes, cracking balls, etc. These are small objects designed to explode on impact. Eleventh, all other trick devices or practical jokes which employ an explosive or a pyrotechnic for their effect are prohibited in this country. Also prohibited are all indoor fireworks, except Christmas crackers, all hand-held fireworks, except sparklers, all shop goods fireworks which do not conform to our standards for testing and authorization of fireworks. According to most foreign manufacturers, these specifications are far more stringent than they encounter in their own country or in other western countries.
It is impossible to determine how many accidents we have prevented in Canada with our system of controls, but we venture to say that we have saved many lives, particularly when the record in Canada is compared with the record in the U.S.A. We are aware that because of our restrictions, some of the prohibited items are smuggled into the country, but they are not legal and they are not readily available to the general public.
This gives a general review of the proposed amendments to the act which, as I indicated, have been based primarily on a wish to tighten up the policing and control of industrial explosives and to tidy up certain aspects of the bill from a technical and legal standpoint. I shall look forward to the opportunity of hearing other hon. gentlemen on the question of this bill, and to having a very full discussion of the proposed changes and other comments when in due course it comes before the standing committee.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing the minister's remarks. I also appreciate the concern he expressed as well as his intentions, especially when one looks around the world and sees some of the difficulties which arise in respect of explosives. However, I cannot help but think, when we look at a bill such as the one being introduced here, that

March 22, 1972
Explosives Act
the legislation must be examined in the light of the harm it could do if improperly administered as well as in light of the good it could do if it is properly administered. There are some areas in the bill with which I think we should be concerned and which should bear a good deal of scrutiny before the bill is passed.
I refer in particular to the intent of the bill which is illustrated very well in section 21 which reads:
Except as authorized by or under this Act, every person who, by himself or his agent, has in his possession, sells, offers for sale, makes, manufactures, imports or delivers to any person any explosive is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction,
This means that there is an onus or personal responsibility on the individual if an explosive device so named in the bill is found in his possession. He has then automatically committed an offence. I cannot go along with the consequences of legislating absolute offences and then providing for exemption by regulation. Last year or the year before there was a bill "the Statutory Instruments Act" which was to provide appeal to any inequalities or improprieties that might be caused by regulations issued under any act. However, when a bill is drafted in the manner in which this one is, the Statutory Instruments Act would offer no protection inasmuch as the regulations under this measure would provide exemptions from the crime rather than create the offence. Consequently, unless parliament provides for exemptions in the act itself, a review by the Statutory Instruments Committee of the validity of affirmative or negative resolution would provide no protection from the provisions of this act. I think that is important. It is impossible for us to discuss this bill intelligently or what the outcome of the passage of this bill will be unless we can examine the regulations that will be made under the act. Those who have studied this bill know that anybody who has in his possession at any time after the passage of this bill an explosive device will be committing an offence and will be liable to summary conviction.
I think it is useful to point out for the benefit of the uninitiated what the definition of an explosive is under this bill. We see that the term "safety cartridge" has been deleted. A special category was provided in the old act, but under this bill it no longer appears. In effect this took care primarily of the hunters and it is in the category of sporting ammunition. Clause 1(2) defines an explosive as follows:
"explosive" means any substance that is made, manufactured or used to produce an explosion or detonation or a pyrotechnic effect, and includes gunpowder, propellant powders, blasting agents, dynamite, detonating cord, lead azide, detonators, ammunition of all descriptions, rockets, fireworks, fireworks compositions, safety flares and other signals.
It covers the whole gamut. Unless an exemption is provided in the regulations, of which we have no knowledge at present, any hunter or any agent who has ammunition in his possession is deemed to have committed an offence.
I suggest that this is totally wrong. There is no reason for hunting cartridges to be included in this act. It might be useful to note that by physical and chemical definition propellant powders are not explosives, and that is what we are concerned with primarily.

With regard to legislating absolute offences such as is accomplished under this act, suppose we were to apply this principle to the Fisheries Act. A provision might then state that anybody who has in his possession fishing equipment or any equipment for use in catching fish has committed an offence unless an exemption is provided in the regulations. The regulations would designate the types of fish which it would be illegal to catch. Suppose it was a crime to catch a diminishing species of fish such as, say, salmon. In such a case, an officer who was enforcing the act, and who happened to see a fisherman plying his trade, would regard the fisherman as one who was committing an offence until the fisheries officer ascertained what type of fish the fisherman was catching. Under this act the onus of proof lies with the individual and he is guilty until he proves himself innocent. Under the Fisheries Act, this would mean that the fisherman would have to prove that he was not catching the protected species of fish or else he would be committing a crime. In many cases this would be an impossible task.
Another section which we should consider is section 23.2 which has to do with the certificate of chemist. Objection can be raised to this provision which requires proof by chemist's certificate. Under this section the chemist would no longer have to appear in court as a witness, and it would be sufficient proof if a certificate were provided from a chemist saying that the substance in someone's possession is of an explosive nature, unless the one against whom charges were pressed was able to prove otherwise. Under this act the onus is on the accused to acertain the background of the chemist and his reliability in providing that certificate. I suggest that this provision bears close scrutiny because it does not seem right that we should arrest a man under this act, that we should require a certificate from a chemist who is not present to the effect that this is indeed an explosive device. It would then be up to the accused and not up to the court to ascertain the reliability or otherwise of the chemist who provided the certificate.
I think that an amendment should be made to take hunting cartridges out of the explosives category because it is not right that shotgun shells should be in the same category as nitroglycerin. I think that there are other areas in the act that need amendment. There is the one with regard to exemptions. I think we will have a great deal of difficulty with provisions dealing with explosives or explosive mixtures which are in common use.
I would like to see what regulations will be written in that regard. Here, I am thinking of the agricultural industry. Some 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the industrial blasting in this country is done with a mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. I am in the farming and ranching business, and it is not uncommon for me to have 30 tons to 40 tons of this material on hand at certain times of the year. I suggest that this is common in all parts of the country. If we are going to have regulations and restrictions covering all these substances we will run into a great deal of difficulty. We will make lawbreakers of hundreds of thousands of people, simply because of the components of the explosives that they may have stored on their
March 22, 1972

premises. We need to know exactly what status each component will have.
Proposed new section 18 provides that:
Every person who enters without permission or lawful authority or is otherwise found in or about any factory or magazine or any vehicle in which an authorized explosive is being conveyed is guilty of an offence-
This means that if a person has premises in which he stores explosives, and within the meaning of the legislation this would include hunting ammunition, restrictions would have to be placed on the movements of his guests so that they would not go near those premises. Further, Mr. Speaker, I believe the provision with regard to the onus of proof is entirely wrong. The onus should be on the authorities to prove that an individual is irresponsible in his actions. It seems that in an effort to control crime and other difficulties that have occurred, in respect to blasting components, we are taking a holus bolus approach and imposing a mass of bureaucratic controls on a great number of law-abiding individuals.
I had occasion to look at the regulations that apply under the present act, and it is apparent that there are literally thousands and thousands of Canadians committing crimes under the provisions of the act without being aware of that fact. In the present case we must produce something that is realistic in terms of its enforceability, or else people will lose their respect for the law.
We already have a mass of regulations that are impossible to enforce. People in their everyday lives are actually breaking the law. When this happens disrespect is engendered for the law. I would like to refer to some of the regulations currently in force. There is one here with respect to the blending and safe handling of explosive mixtures. It refers to ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. They are supposed to be stored in different sites, but how often are diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate unknowingly blended, with the result that the person concerned is breaking the law? That regulation goes back to 1957.
In 1963 there was another regulation stipulating that no person should loiter in the vicinity of any area or structure where defence stocks of explosives are stored. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that anybody who has visited a defence base has seen somebody loitering in such an area. People are breaking the law all the time in respect to that regulation. Half the people on a defence base are civilian personnel. If a man has his hands in his pockets, is he loitering?
Then there is another regulation which says that when an explosive is contained in a package, the outer package must be destroyed or disposed of in such a manner that it cannot be re-used for any purpose. Mr. Speaker, how many children have filled a .22 box or shotgun shell box with some other substance, making a toy out of it? What about powder cans? They are great for holding screws in home workshops. But anybody who uses them that way is breaking the law. I say it is completely unrealistic to make a criminal out of a child who puts sand in a box which held .22 shells.
There are other regulations that are equally ridiculous. There is one which says that a quantity of explosives of a certain class, including fireworks, exceeding five pounds may not be carried in a vehicle that is carrying public
Explosives Act
passengers. In other words, not more than 5 pounds of hunting ammunition can be carried in a vehicle that carries public passengers. I would estimate that a box of shotgun shells weighs 2 pounds, so that in effect a person taking three boxes of shotgun shells home with him on the bus is a criminal, according to this regulation.
There are other restrictions with respect to the hauling of explosives. One regulation states that after the operation of unloading from any vehicle is commenced it should not cease and should be completed as expeditiously as possible. I think that the present limit of a load on such a vehicle is about 10,000 pounds. If workers stopped unloading half way through in order to get a cup of coffee they would be breaking the law.
The same regulation provides that vehicles used for the transportation of explosives:
-shall be inspected daily to ascertain that
(i)	the fire extinguishers are filled and in working order,
(ii)	the electric wiring is completely insulated and firmly secured,
(iii)	the fuel tank and feed lines have no leaks,
(iv)	the chassis, engine, pan and bottom of the body are clean and free from surplus oil and grease,
(v)	the brakes and steering apparatus are in good condition, and
(vi)	the spare tire and wheel are in a fixed position-
It also provides that:
-explosives shall not be loaded onto or into a motor vehicle unless the vehicle has been fully serviced with respect to supplies of fuel, oil and air;
From that I would gather that anybody hauling explosives has committed an offence if he has not checked the tires, has not seen to it that they are up to a certain pressure, has not filled the gas tank with fuel, and has not checked the oil. This is utterly ridiculous. To try to enforce regulations like this would mean utter disrespect for the law. To pass the bill in its present form, providing that it is an offence to possess explosives unless there is a remission by regulation, would be a backward step, one that will only get us into trouble.
I can understand what the minister is trying to achieve. He referred to the recent blast in Toronto, and I know that at the time the War Measures Act was invoked there were some explosions in various cities in Quebec. Let us look at the world scene. The troublespot where this act might have some bearing at the present time, I think we would have to agree, would be Ireland where blasts occur every day. The regulations pertaining to explosives and guns in Ireland have been in effect for about 60 years. Under these regulations only a few people can possess guns, and explosives are out of the question. It is illegal to possess guns, illegal to possess explosives-it is illegal to belong to the IRA. What has this accomplished in the way of peace? Absolutely nothing. These regulations have imposed a host of restrictions on ordinary law-abiding citizens because of the criminal element and the people who are making the trouble in that country. The law in this regard has no effect at all on crime and insurrection.
Passage of this bill before us would mean that the ordinary law-abiding man who likes to go hunting on Sunday would have so many restrictions that he would

March 22, 1972
Explosives Act
just wonder if it was worth the effort. There is no evidence that these restrictions have done any good in other countries where they have been in effect for many years. It is probably some bureaucratic zealot with a hang-up about firearms and explosives who created this monstrosity which confronts us today.
In commenting on this bill the Ottawa Citizen of March 2, stated:
The minister said that the new law will place a heavy obligation on all lawful users of explosives-
The article went on to comment on the terrorist tactics at which this bill is aimed. I think the introduction to this bill suggests that we trust the government and have faith in them to provide suitable regulations which will look after all these law-abiding people who may be potential users of explosives. I would like to bring forward another matter in regard to trusting the principles and motives of the government.
In the last year we have all been involved in a great debate on marketing boards. I am referring to Bill C-176. Some provincial marketing board groups appeared before the committee to say that this was a good thing and that we must have faith that it would be administered properly. I can remember particularly that it was emphasized time and time again that the provinces would have full control over these boards, that there would be no difference, that the federal authority would be the coordinating authority and all that. I was surprised last week to see an article in the Farm and Country magazine of March 14, which stated, under the heading "Will C-176 Strip Broiler Board of Its Powers:
The government wants more. "I cannot contemplate the federal government agreeing to an agency only powered to co-ordinate interprovincial movement," said Charles Phillips, Canada Department of Agriculture marketing director-general.
Philips told the recent Toronto meeting of the Ontario Commodity Council that provincial marketing boards must relinquish enough power to let the federal agency fully administer the national plan. He noted there may be some need to federally regulate intra-provincial movement.
In other words, now that the bill has been passed, the attitude is different. The government is now saying that they must have the power to override the provincial authorities. This is the same government we are dealing with in regard to the explosives bill. When we see what has happened to the marketing board legislation, how can we close our eyes and let this bill go through when the provisions creating offences are in such absolute terms? Any remission of the offence has to be through regulations. How can we go along with that type of thinking in light of our past experience with a government which has broken faith? That is what concerns me today. Before this bill passes, we need to have suitable measures built into it to take care of those individuals; we need to have a look at the regulations and see where the man in the street stands.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to move an amendment at this time, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner):
That all the words after "That" be left out and the following substituted therefor:
"this House, affirming the principle that the criminal law of Canada extends only to anti-social acts and repudiating the princi-
IMr. Downey.]
pie of Bill C-7 that crimes include innocent acts as well as antisocial acts save only those acts exempted by regulation in the government's discretion, refers the subject matter of Bill C-7 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Looking at the amendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) the Chair has some hesitation about the form of it. The amendment seems to do two things: it is a reasoned amendment partly opposing the bill and at the same time referring the subject matter of the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. To my mind, the amendment would have to be one or the other. By his amendment the hon. member could oppose the bill or any part of the bill and leave it at that or choose to refuse the second reading of the bill and at the same time refer the subject matter of the bill to a standing committee. Before making a definite decision, I would be ready to hear comments from hon. members interested in the procedural acceptability of the amendment. I shall then make a decision.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the principles involved in amendments on second reading I think are well known. I would refer the Chair to the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne, section 386(3) which reads:
The House cannot, under the guise of referring the subject matter to a committee, refer also certain provisions of the bill itself.
It seems to me that since the amendment put forward by the hon. member refers to both the terms of the bill and the regulations, it offends that aspect of the commonly accepted procedures of the House. I suggest that the amendment as put by the hon. member is not a reasoned amendment, as that term has been understood and accepted within the provisions of the customs and procedures of the House over the years. Therefore, I would seek to reinforce the hesitation which Your Honour expressed and say that in its present form the amendment is not acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The argument just made by the minister confirms the hesitation of the Chair. May I read part of the citation to which the minister referred. The last part of citation 386(3) on page 278 of Beauchesne's reads:
The House cannot both refuse to give the second reading and refer some provisions of the Bill to a committee. It shall have to make its choice.
The amendment referred to was ruled out of order. Therefore, for the reasons expressed, I cannot accept the amendment in its present form.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly interested in this bill, both for what it says and for what it does not say. With some clauses I agree entirely. I agree that some clauses dealing with explosives are good. Other clauses are not so good, for the government has tried to do by the back door what it cannot do by the front door. That is normal practice for this government. If the government really intends to go after people like the members of the FLQ, it should say so, and go after them under the Criminal Code, perhaps, instead of
March 22, 1972

playing about with what appears to be an innocuous explosives bill.
I have bought and used more explosives in a month than the FLQ has used in all its existence, and I did this over many years. I know that some quarries, mining companies and prospectors have taken liberties. They have done so only because inspection was not enforced. The government did not enforce the regulations already in existence and was lax in handling problems involving explosives. If this government or country thinks you can eliminate the illicit use of explosives simply by passing this bill, I can only say that the problem of explosives is not being astutely handled. One of these days someone will take a carload of common, ordinary farm fertilizer, dump in enough fuel oil to make it adhesive, put in some kind of primer, and he will make a reasonably big bang pretty cheaply. Most explosives fit into that category. An explosive in itself is not bad; it is only bad when improperly used.
I do not object to regulations requiring us to take every kind of precaution possible in the manufacturing of explosives. We want people handling explosives to know exactly what the results of misuse will be. However, there must be uniformity in legislation. I have worked with people who have handled explosives for long periods of time and their nerves have become very bad. One chap lit a fuse that was supposed to be 18 inches long; when he lit it, it was only 5 inches long. He lit it, jumped off the car, heard the big explosion and the people around there were back on the car in seconds. That was a mistake, and the man made it because his nerves were bad. He had been handling explosives for too long. If the government had not insisted on pretty severe safety restrictions applying to the manufacture of fuses, and if it had not insisted on certain minimum safety requirements, people like that would be in much greater trouble. Therefore, I agree that the government has a responsibility in this field.
I agree that regulations regarding the transporting of explosives should be enforced. Such regulations really will not make much difference, when you consider some of the other substances being transported. For instance, a carload of dynamite being hauled on the highway is not nearly as explosive as a carload of gasoline, and not half as explosive as a carload of liquid propane, or bottles of liquid air or oxygen. The explosive power of many substances is far greater than that of substances we normally use as explosives. For instance, the army hauls high explosives on the highways, and the trucks carry no markings. The army has moved-yes, Mr. Speaker,-even atomic weapons up and down the highway, mostly at night. Nobody has known about it and the trucks were not marked. That is how they moved atomic weapons to North Bay. They were moved in secret, with as little fanfare as possible, and the trucks were not marked. Yet, we make it a point of introducing highly restrictive legislation affecting explosives.
Why is the government doing this? Obviously, it wants to convince the public that it stands for law and order. It is saying, "Let's get rid of all illegal explosives; let's cut out the possibility of bombings taking place; let us cut down on the murders which take place." In short, the government is saying, "We really stand for law and order;
Explosives Act
we are tough, and we are going to do something about it." That, Mr. Speaker, is a lot of tommyrot.
I hope that if we pass this explosives bill the civil servants working in the minister's department understand how explosives can be used. I hope some of them understand the legitimate purposes for which explosives can be used. As I say, there must be inspection. Explosives must be examined carefully. I am not arguing that we should move explosives up and down the road as though they were cords of wood. Every precaution possible should be taken to make sure that people do not run afoul of explosions. On the other hand, we must make it possible for people handling explosives legitimately to have ready access to explosives. Under the old act we excluded explosive cartridges. In the present bill we include in the definition of explosives, propellant powders, ammunition of all descriptions, rockets, fireworks, safety flares and so on. Why are those things in there? I have not heard of cartridges exploding accidentally, save in wartime. Millions of cartridges every day are being filled in Canada in home workshops and basements, and there is absolutely no danger of their exploding. Why should cartridges be included, unless the minister is trying to do something that is not related to explosions?
Why are flares included? Why are we to make it mandatory that storage places are to be built so many feet from any building, that the temperature is to be kept at a certain level, that certain kinds of locks are to be placed on warehouse doors, and so on? Why are the various parts of certain explosives to be separated by so many feet and contained in cement block buildings, and so on? Why must we do that with safety flares? When Canadian Tire decided to sell safety flares, commonly known as fusees, I thought it was a good idea. You can buy three safety flares in a small package. If you are stalled on the road, you put them in front and behind your vehicle. These flares prevent accidents, and I think they are a good idea. Now, the minister decides that there must be the same kind of regulations governing fusees as govern dynamite, cordite, driftite, stopcite, forcite, gelatin and other explosive substances. These little safety flares are to be put in that category. This means that Canadian Tire and other stores in Canada selling these flares will need to keep them in reinforced units specially built for that purpose. The fusees will be kept in these buildings, and it will be hardly worth while selling them. Anybody who wants to buy them will need a licence; and, of course, the people selling them will need a licence.
I would need a four foot sign on the back of my car with flashing lights in seven colours if I were carrying explosives. Well, I would not need a fuse if I were going to all that trouble to create an explosion. The regulations can be that ridiculous. If we were to do exactly what the minister said he wants to do, obviously we should have two kinds of acts, one to handle explosives and the other to limit the use of a number of commodities. I listened to the minister outline those commodities. I suppose this law will put most of the joke shops out of business. I never bought these commodities because I always thought they were stupid. I do not have that kind of a sense of humour. When my car goes bang, it usually means I have to pay $35 for a

March 22. 1972
Explosives Act
new muffler and that is no joke. I do not intend to attach a contraption that will produce that kind of a result. If the minister is going to provide protection to those who use explosives in mines, quarries, construction companies and other legitimate users, he will not fool around with the type of thing you put in your hand and which goes bang when shaking hands with another fellow. That, apparently, is the purpose of this act.
We could raise the constitutional problem. We do not have a constitution like that of the United States which permits everyone in that country to have a gun. When the Criminal Code was before us, the Canadian public decided they were not in favour of a total restriction of firearms in this country. I am not going to participate in accomplishing the same thing through the back door by including in this act safety cartridges, ammunition for guns and shotgun shells. It is quite true that under one act a person may have a gun, but under another act he is not permitted to have ammunition for that gun. That is fine for collectors because sometimes they are odd people. Some want ammunition, some do not. Some collectors only buy ammunition and no guns. They consider that a collection.
When dealing with another piece of legislation, the government stated that approximately 35 per cent of the population in Canada lived in four major urban centres. If that is true, I agree that in most cases a person may not have any desire to own a gun or to purchase ammunition. If he did, he could go to the police station, buy a gun, get a permit to buy ammunition and another permit to transport the ammunition down a highway. He could make all those special requests because it would be for a very special purpose. However, the exact opposite is true in my part of the country. Almost everyone owns a gun and almost everyone goes hunting. The other day I talked to a chap who had been working too hard. I suggested that it would be very easy for him to go to Spain for a holiday. This fellow was not poor. He could afford to go to Spain or some other part of Europe. He said he would rather go hunting. A large percentage of the people in northern Canada consider going hunting with their companions to be an ideal vacation.
The minister stated that a person selling ammunition would have to have a licence, and would have to meet stringent requirements in order to retain explosives. The minister will say that is not true. Probably that is what he thinks. However, I am not sure what some of his subordinates think. I do not believe the minister is sure either. Every time we have a problem with a piece of legislation, and I am thinking now of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the government says "you people passed the act". Then, they say this provision is not in the act, it is in the regulations. Damn near everything in this country is done by regulation, not legislation.
I suppose the regulations will limit the ability of a small service station operator in my area who had to pull political strings to sell ammunition. This is in a remote area where fishing and hunting is of prime importance. This service station operator had to get a licence to sell hunting and fishing licences. He probably has a dozen cartons of shotgun shells, not more than a case of 22 shells, probably eight or 10 boxes of ammunition in the common sizes of
[Mr. Peters.J
303, 306, 308, 30/30, the common types of ammunition for hunting in that area. Under the regulations made under this act, he will no longer be allowed to have these.
I cannot think of any offence that has occurred where it would have been an advantage to restrict sales of ordinary ammunition. I am sure that in most robberies and other offences that type, small arms, sidearms, revolvers, Lugers and similar types of equipment are used. Most people that I know do not stock Luger ammunition, 9 mm ammunition and center fire cartridges for 38's. They do not stock that kind of ammunition because they do not have permits to sell it. I suggest this kind of ammunition is obtained from another source that is readily available to the element that has a use for it. If so, we should discuss that openly and come to some conclusion on it.
I strongly urge the minister not to include clause 2 in the bill. This includes a definition of explosives, ammunition of all descriptions, fireworks, safety flares and so on. I am well aware that some of these have a danger. Safety flares may have a danger, but I do not know what it is. They may burn the house down. I can remember as a young boy stealing torpedoes or thunder claps from the railroad. I put them on the railroad track, the train ran over them and made one hell of a noise.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You didn't do that.


William Arnold Peters: Yes. That happened when I was only seven or eight years of age. I agree with the minister and his officials that the railway company has an obligation, not so much for my sake and the trouble I may cause, but for its own safety. Why should they let children louse up their safety and signal systems by leaving these in an unlocked shack along the railway track? That is like Kresge's putting all their small junk and candies on a low counter for children to steal. It is an unreasonable temptation. The people who should do something about this are those who cause the temptation. The banks do not put sample money on the counter because they know it is not advantageous. The railways should display the same caution.
I can tell you some things that may happen. Before safety flares were generally available, many policemen got them from railway workers, and these flares were used to good advantage. We are not requesting that the railways tighten their control over flares, but we are saying that they should be placed in the same position as anybody else with regard to handling explosives.
Although we may not stop this bill from going through, I have news for the minister. I do not give a damn what he does about ammunition in northern Ontario; if we do not get it any place else we will get it from United States tourists, just as we get fishing tackle. They will bring it in and none of it will return with them. If that happens, the control now possible through the orderly sale of ammunition in a store will be totally destroyed and the minister will be caused trouble that he never expected.
I am sure the minister is aware that if a person has a .38 or Luger which is registered with the police, such a gun would seldom be used for an illegal purpose. The same is true of ammunition. I have always been concerned, partly because of my ignorance, about the growing spread of the
March 22, 1972

use of handguns today. I say "because of my ignorance" because I do not really know anything about the subject. I am always concerned when I see a pailful of weights in my garage taken from cars and which my son has collected to make bullets. I know he will be using a lot of powder and youngsters are always pushing guns to their limit. Anything we do to restrict the legitimate, reasonable and orderly sale of ammunition I suggest will further the market for reloading cartridges to push a gun beyond the safety factor.
Manufacturers of shells have their own equipment to test the maximum explosive effect a given gun can withstand. The homeloader makes this test by trial and error, and when he exceeds the maximum the error may be a costly one. So, let us not bow to those who talk about law and order without thinking just what law and order may entail. Let us not complicate a simple act that seeks to regulate the use of explosives for legitimate purposes by putting in all this junk to which the minister has referred. I suggest we leave the act as it was, and that safety cartridges be excluded from its provisions. I also suggest we exclude flares and some of the more harmless fireworks. I was not badly brought up but my mother and father let me play with five cent firecrackers or sparklers on certain occasions, and I do not think it hurt me. We would be taking away some of the joys of being young were we to prohibit young folk from playing with fireworks simply because they could be dangerous in extreme cases.
Is the minister going to say that under this act and regulations no one under the age of 15 is allowed to buy firecracker devices, or is he going to say that those who go to great expense to buy the necessary equipment to maintain explosives in top shape are to come within the act? One of the problems created in provinces where it is not mandatory to keep explosives in proper shape is that when the dynamite deteriorates, or the glycerine inside the cartridge exudes to the surface, it becomes highly dangerous. As a result, these cartridges should be properly disposed of. I am sure some of the dynamite used by the FLQ was dynamite discarded by quarry companies as unfit for use. Nevertheless, in its deteriorated state it can be highly effective when used for other purposes. Therefore, I am glad the minister is tightening up the provisions regarding the disposal of explosives obtained legitimately.
I shall be interested to hear from the officials about particular abuses which have taken place and to what extent they intend the act to go. Without this information I will not be able to support the legislation, for the simple reason that I know that it will lend itself to a multitude of abuses. Law and order officers will try to eliminate use of guns in Canada by placing restrictions on the sale of ammunition. This will mean each little service station and country store in my area, many of them 50 or 75 miles from any municipality, will be prohibited from carrying on its shelves ammunition for use by hunters in the area. These restrictions will be enforced by zealous, stupid people-most of the law and order officers fit into that category-who do not face a problem but try to solve it by subterfuge, and this usually creates more problems than it solves.
Explosives Act
I am very much in favour of the changes that have been made in the provisions governing the use of explosives. My only objection is to the use of this bill for an ulterior purpose, one that lends itself to great discrimination against 75 per cent of the people in this country who on occasion like to go hunting for pleasure and for game.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is intended to give citizens and society more protection against the hazards inherent in explosives. However, if we analyse the reasons which prompted the government to introduce such legislation, I think it in order to question some clauses of this bill; although they put much more teeth in the present act and make the use of explosives much stricter, they might not in fact make it all that much easier to reach our objective.
I agree almost completely with the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) on the points on which he dwelled in his speech, Mr. Speaker, for it is not indeed by being more stringent about the manufacture and the use of explosives that a social problem will be solved.
That some individuals totally lacking in human decency should have used explosives for unavowable or extremely wicked purposes must not make us lose our senses and pass laws that are so strict that finally, those who would normally benefit from their advantages might really become their victims.
I should like to stress a few specific points. It is true, as the member for Timiskaming pointed out, that the reforms proposed by the bill might lead to endless abuse. I may be told that regulations to be set up will decrease of or remove those abuses.
Mr. Speaker, we have already had striking examples. May I mention one related to the infamous events of October 1970 in Quebec where, through the War Measures Act, efforts were made to arrest a handful of people, about ten at the most. The act that was applied was far too strict, all out of proportion to the objective, and I wonder if the changes proposed here might not lead to similar abuse.
Some 500 or 600 persons were arrested under the War Measures Act, for absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker, thus denying the freedom of thousands of individuals because of an act that was too strict, too severe, too specific.
In this case, the object is indeed extremely worthy: to keep shady characters, commonly known as terrorists, from having easy access to explosives. We are all aware, Mr. Speaker, that we must not make things too easy for that type of bandits who could spread terror in the land if getting explosives is a cinch.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is well known that it is not through stricter administration of the law for the majority of people, that this kind of persons will be rehabilitated. All sorts of laws can be enacted to prohibit thefts, but we know that thefts are constantly on the increase. I would even suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the stricter the laws and the more they infringe on personal freedom, the more provocative and explosive they will tend to be.

March 22. 1972
Explosives Act
This is why I am wondering to what extent it was useful to amend this act. Here is another example of possible misuse. Clause 18 of the bill reads as follows:
Every person who enters without permission or lawful authority or is otherwise found in or about any factory or magazine or any vehicle in which an authorized explosive is being conveyed-
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that this is intended to prevent those who would steal dynamite and who would be found, at a given time, "about" a place where dynamite could be had. I understand that. This example, however, shows all the possible abuses that can occur, and someone who would happen to be strolling not very far from a truck loaded with explosives, or a magazine, or an explosive factory, could be arrested. I do not suggest that this will inevitably happen, but that the amendment before us creates this possibility, Mr. Speaker. Here is part of clause 18 as amended:
-is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars and he may be forthwith removed therefrom by any constable or by any person employed at the factory or magazine or the operator of the vehicle, as the case may be.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the objective is very commendable but we will never sufficiently understand that it is not through strict laws, not by harshness that we will correct the individuals who have attained such a degree of lunacy that the only solution they have is terrorism. We should find ways of correcting society itself since the people who are causing so much trouble are products of our society.
Even if we build double and triple concrete walls around magazines, if we make explosives almost inaccessible for those who in good faith need them for useful and even essential works, all this will never prevent lunatics or cheaters from getting dynamite anyhow. Agitators will at all times be able to organize interception of vehicles transporting explosives, entering building sites and taking possession of explosives, which is what happened in Quebec. Notwithstanding the watchmen, when there are people ready to hold up banks in full daylight, terrorists- if any-will find some way or other to go around a legislation, however strict it may be.
That is why I say that, even with amendments, Bill C-7 now before us will, in my opinion, bring about no improvement and will complicate the life of some Canadians who will henceforth be caught in an inextricable web of difficulties.
For instance, I am sure the regulations will provide for this. In fact, clause 3 indicates that section 5 will be repealed, and I quote:
Except as authorized under this Act and subject to such exemptions as may be provided by regulation, no person shall (a) make or manufacture explosives either wholly or in part except in a licensed factory;
Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that in chemistry laboratories, whether at the CEGEP or at university level, explosives are manufactured, which means that teachers in the CEGEPs and students in CEGEPS and universities could be arrested on the grounds that their chemical experiments result in manufacture of explosives. Evidently, I am sure the regulations provide for such cases, but I

wonder whether an explicit amendment could not do away with that ambiguity.
So, if a time came when we would stop all chemical experiments under the pretext that one or two terrorists might get their hands on a few sticks of dynamite, Mr. Speaker, that would be exagerated. And if our society has produced such crackpots, Mr. Speaker, it is because there are shortcomings in our society. But none of these stem from the Explosives Act which is already quite strict, and of course I agree that it should be because we cannot be allowed to play with such things. As everyone knows, the Explosives Act is being amended because there have been terrorist activities in Quebec in the past. Acts of terrorism will be prevented only through elimination of all the faults of our society which produces such crackpots.
We should bring in legislation promoting the freedom, emancipation and fulfilment of the individual. We should pass legislation which would make Canadians so happy and so free that they would never consider doing wrong. As for those who would misbehave because of some mental deficiency they would be shut in.
Surely, when every Canadian will enjoy a minimum standard of living and will be guaranteed maximum individual freedom, there will be no more terrorists left in the country.
Before amending the legislation to make it more stringent, before erecting concrete walls to prevent terrorism, we should further consider other legislation promoting individual emancipation and fulfilment. This is what Canadians need and this is what they are asking for. And the reason why today a certain segment of the population, no matter how small, sees no other means than terrorism or destruction to achieve its objectives is that there are cracks, there are gaps, in this country's legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has taken a stand on this issue and that he is opposed, for instance, to making compulsory the carrying of an identification card.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it would be far more logical and far more effective, before we pass legislation to make access to explosives more difficult, to pass legislation which would make it easier for people to prove their identity on any occasion, in order to protect the individual.
Some people will say: No, on the contrary, this would trespass on freedom. People who have nothing to hide are never afraid to say who they are. It might be more important, therefore, to consider passing legislation giving every Canadian the means to prove his identity effectively on any occasion, rather than legislation which advocates building concrete walls around powder-magazines or which will prevent the farmer on a concession road in the constituency of Champlain, for instance, to accomplish certain useful tasks because of the complexities of the legislation.
I think that while we are trying to stop a very small group, we are not going to stop them at all. You can be sure that if some people have it in their heads to go and steal explosives, they will find ways to do so no matter how strict the law is. You will not stop this, but at the
March 22, 1972

same time you create difficulties for quite a number of people.
So, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by saying that if the minister proposes amendments which will improve certain clauses of this bill, I will support those amendments right away; but if the amendments are not adequate, or if no changes are made, I will have to oppose this bill.
We support the freedom of the individual so much that it is not our role I think to make access to progress, work and so on, difficult for most people, simply in an effort to curb harmful acts, because it is well known that these harmful acts will be committed anyway if we keep the same hotheads. And to correct those hotheads, we shall have to devise other legislation that will offer better safeguards for freedom.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on Bill C-7,1 must begin by saying I agree wholeheartedly with much of what the previous speaker said in respect of his concern and his views about this piece of legislation. First of all, I believe this legislation should receive a very thorough examination in the committee because it touches upon the very freedoms of the individual which all of us cherish so much. One really should ask oneself why such an act is necessary and why the government is bringing it forward. In this particular case, I believe most members will come to the conclusion it is partly or mostly because of the uprising in Quebec of October 1970. Then, of course, in considering whether or not this piece of legislation would halt or forever prohibit similar uprisings in the future, one can only come to the conclusion that it would not. In fact, I would be led to believe that if another uprising were to take place, the next would be much better organized and much better planned.
One learns by experience, no matter in what field he is. He may be a demolition expert, an expert at making bombs or an expert in terrorist tactics. Certainly, the next uprising may be carried out by the same people or may be led by the same people. One can be sure that it would be better planned, better organized and perhaps much more extensive because the leaders would have a far larger following before the uprising is initiated. So if you follow common logic, and I think that is the only thing to do, this bill does nothing to stop a well planned, organized uprising or insurrection against the state, against the municipal government or against any authority.
Would this act prohibit a well planned, well organized uprising? No, it would not. Similar legislation is not doing it in Ireland, as somebody suggested. Makarios of Cyprus recently had a large amount of arms and ammunition in his possession. He had them shipped in from Czechoslovakia. I understand that since then he has turned them over to the authorities. Arms and ammunition can be acquired from other countries. Quebec has a particularly rugged coastline and any amount of ammunition, arms and dynamite could be smuggled into the province by a well organized group of people who wanted to terrorize the authorities. So, this act comes too late. What is it
Explosives Act
attempting to accomplish and what will be its harmful effects?
Actually, this bill will make life more complicated for the average Joe who perhaps likes to do a little hunting on his weekends or in his time off. Hunting is becoming one of Canada's biggest pastimes, aside from skiing and taking part in spectator sports such as football and hockey. Many people find a great deal of pleasure in hunting. We have large areas in Canada which lend themselves to hunting. There are a number of gun clubs, hunting clubs and sports clubs which encourage the development of this sport. This bill will only make it more difficult for them. Also, in many of our schools across Canada a great interest in rockets is developing. It might interest the House to know that one such rocket club is operating in my constituency. They are having a showing of their rockets on April 1; they have invited me to attend and I have accepted. This group of young high school boys is under the guidance of a teacher. Last winter they enjoyed building and launching their rockets and they are pretty proud of their achievement. Clause 3 of the bill would cause a great deal of trouble for them. It reads in part:
-no person shall
(a) make or manufacture explosives either wholly or in part except in a licenced factory.
I have yet to go to the demonstration, but I believe that it would fall within the terms of that provision.
We really should analyse our society. Back in October, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked if we were a bunch of runny-nosed, weak-kneed kids who could not manage our society. I believe the government and the minister should analyse that question, because it is the duty of the elected bodies to make laws to protect society. What have we done in that regard? This House has passed the Criminal Code, which provided capital punishment only for the murder of policemen and prison guards. The government has even neglected to enforce the wishes of the House with regard to society. As an hon. member near me suggests, 37 policemen have been murdered coldbloodedly since 1961, with no repercussions from society.
What are the repercussions from such an attitude? We find law officers who are inclined to take the law into their own hands. They shoot first and ask questions after, particularly if they see someone coming at them with a gun. I do not blame them, this is natural. Let us look at the effect this attitude has had on our citizens. There is a growing fear in Canada that too many citizens are acquiring guns, pistols and the like to protect themselves and their homes. Does this not mean that society or its governing bodies have failed to provide the security which the citizens want? That is how I understand it.
This bill does not help the ordinary citizen; it does not bring him a greater degree of security. In fact, it creates a situation where crooks and murderers can acquire weapons while ordinary citizens cannot. The policeman is not inclined to defend them because his life is not protected. So, security is not provided to the individuals in our society. I think this is terrible. To go back to the October 1970 uprising in the province of Quebec, let me point out that the greatest fear at that time was that army depots and arsenals would be robbed, that guns would be stolen

March 22, 1972
Explosives Act
or ammunition and dynamite taken from the army. This will still be possible after this legislation is passed. These people will still be able to acquire all the ammunition and arms they want. This bill does not prevent them from doing so, but it does make it very difficult for a law abiding citizen to live within the law.
Any time a piece of legislation is passed, we know that seven out of ten people will be breaking that law unconsciously. This is a terrible weapon in the hands of some over-zealous policeman, municipal or federal, and it encourages him to crack down on an innocent person. This is wrong. We must ensure that our police force operates in a fair and just manner. Policemen should not interpret the law, but they should ascertain the facts and allow the courts to do the judging. Recently, the Canadian Weekly magazine of March 18 contained an article on Canada's toughest cop. I read the article and it amazed me that the photograph of such a man would appear on the front page of a weekend magazine which goes into every home. Are we proud to have such cops in Canada? I do not think I was when I read the article. However, we have them, and we are proud of them, because we need them since governments have failed to enact laws and society to obey them. The government has failed to enforce the laws that this House has passed.
I understand the feeling of compassion that many people have and their desire to see the criminal rehabilitated. On the other hand, there should be no leniency and no compassion for the cold-blooded murderers, the hired killers, the Mafia killers who operate in Canada and elsewhere, and the murderers who take part in insurrections against the state. Let us not forget the question the Prime Minister asked: what we are, a bunch of weak-kneed, runny-nosed kids? He went on to say that we were bleeding hearts. I think the Prime Minister is great. He can rise to occasions requiring hardness and coldness, but he fails to last, to continue the degree of hardness and coldness that society calls on the Prime Minister to accept as his responsibility. I think he should accept that responsibility. He should remain cool and calm. But when there is deliberate murder-call it first degree murder or second degree murder, call it capital murder or anything you like-this impairs the security of the individual in our society.
In my opinion, this legislation is an acknowledgement of the fact that in Canada there is less and less security, and the freedoms of the individual are being threatened. In introducing this legislation, the minister said, in effect, that we must try to make society secure. But is he making it secure? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. He is taking away some of the freedoms, and making things more hazardous for the individual. Under proposed new section 18, if you are in the neighbourhood of a factory or magazine, and in this context magazine means a premises for storing dynamite, and you are there without permission, even if you are there unknowingly, then a policeman may arrest you on suspicion that you are attempting to steal something from the magazine or factory. In that case, you are immediately deemed guilty and must prove your innocence.
We in this country have long believed that a person is innocent until proven guilty, although that principle has

been chipped away in various pieces of legislation. Under this proposed new section, a person is deemed guilty the minute he is apprehended by any law enforcement officer. This is contrary to my opinion of how a free society should operate. A government that fails to ensure security within society has failed to accept its full responsibility and should not be allowed to govern any longer. If my interpretation of the minister's introductory remarks is correct, and the people of Canada believe as I do, they will dismiss the government in the next election.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised as I listened to some of the speakers for the official opposition. One would have thought that that party, which historically has stood for law and order and the great civic virtues of responsibility, would welcome legislation like this which has the characteristic of bringing up to date a type of regulatory procedure which has been in the statutes for a long time. But one is led to believe, by the speeches made by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and his colleague who preceded him, that they are against the regulation of explosives, that they rather favour the idea of people not being regulated regarding the importation, acquisition and transportation of explosives in Canada.
I think that the arguments we have heard are those which might be made against any criminal legislation. It can be said that there will always be thieves, there will always be robbers, there will always be people who commit violent assaults. If the logic we have just heard from the hon. member for Crowfoot is applied, then why have laws against thieves, against robbers, against people who commit assaults? We are told that this kind of law may not apply to the Mafia, and that seasoned felons or thugs will violate it. That may be so, but it does impose a type of control on them, and it achieves a degree of protection for society which every outward sign indicates we need more and more as years go by.
My immediate purpose in rising in this debate is to deal with a rather minor complication which the development of technology and scientific interest has brought upon us. There are many young people in this country who are interested in rocketry. Probably they are potential spacemen. I was surprised at the beginning of this year to receive a communication from a group of high school students in my constituency telling me that their rocketry group got tangled up in governmental red tape. They wished to construct a rocket. They set about finding out where one went to get a permit for this purpose, and what law applied. Mr. Speaker, I was advised by these young people that they found in this city, in this region, they were passed around from one agency to another. Finally, their local police force gave them some kind of a permit. They have addressed a question to me which I hope will be answered in the debate on this measure. Where does one go in Canada to get a permit to construct rockets? To whom do school children, who are interested in this subject, go to get permission? Or do they indeed need permission for this purpose?
I think that the discussion which we are having will not only perform a valuable function in bringing the law up to date but may also serve the equally valuable purpose of informing the public as to what the law is and who admin-
March 22, 1972

isters the law. My brief contribution, Mr. Speaker, will conclude with my expression of the hope that in the committee information will be given about the application of this law to the growing interest of young people in the science of rocketry.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the remarks set forth initially by my colleague from Timiskaming. I support his contention that basically what is being sought to be done here by this bill is to try to put together, under one set of confinements and constrictions, two things which really do not belong together. The idea that a case of 80 per cent powder is the equivalent of a box of .22 shells and should be licensed and controlled in the same way, does not stand up.
I want to expand a bit on that from the point of view of a rural member, from the point of view of a person who lives in an area where it is pretty common practice to have rifles in every household, a common practice to see people drive down the street in a pick-up truck with two or three rifles hanging on the rack at the back of the cab, especially during the hunting season in the fall of the year. In such an area, it is common practice to go into a hardware store or even a service station and buy shells for rifles and shotguns. The possession of a box of shells is considered in the same way as possession of foodstuffs or any other commodity used in the course of everyday living in a rural area as distinct from living in the city.
I should like to raise a question which has bothered me somewhat, whilst admitting ignorance of the fine points of constitutional law. I have wondered about the constitutional authority of the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation, which was done in the Explosives Act as far back as 1954 and which we are seeking to continue, which overrides the constitutional right of a province to exercise legislative authority over matters of commerce and trade within that province. Under the Explosives Act and the bill before us, we are seeking to make this law apply to all federal government departments, with the exception of the Department of National Defence, and I wonder about that, and to every province. It would override the right of a province under the British North America Act to engage in and legislate in the area of trade and of licences. I raise this not so much to question the necessity of establishing controls on explosives such as gelignite, dynamite and the other types of explosive powders and substances, but rather in the context of the intent of this legislation to impose those same restrictions upon the sale, purchase and possession of everyday things like .22 shells and cartridges, .306 shells, 410 shotgun shells and all the ordinary ammunition that people buy every day of the week without any criminal intent whatsoever. I raise the constitutionality of this measure in that context.
Section 3 of the act now says that the Explosives Act shall apply to Her Majesty in right of Canada, and to each province, regardless of what that province may wish in terms of its own legislation. It is true that the British North America Act gives the Parliament of Canada the right to enact legislation relating to criminal law. It may be that, having passed the Explosives Act in the first place, and by declaring in section 3 thereof that the provi-
Explosives Act
sions of that act override the constitutional rights of the provinces in the areas of civil rights and commerce, criminal law is established. The act set up certain requirements and certain penalties if those requirements are not met.
I wondered as well about the provision that a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person he finds offending against the act or whom he has reason to believe is likely to offend against the act. It has always been my view that the right of a police officer to arrest without warrant can lead to abuses. Balanced with that, of course, is the obvious necessity where explosives are concerned, when someone is found to be in illegal possession of explosives and is thought to be about to commit a criminal act with them, for police officers to have some powers. I only say that such wide-open authority can lead to abuses of privileges and rights in some cases by police officers when operating under the Explosives Act.
Because of the serious view taken of illegal possession of explosives for illegal purposes, illegal manufacturing of them, illegal storing of them, it would seem to me that the penalty provisions in the bill might be more realistic. I understand that upon first conviction there is a fine of $500 or three months in jail or both, and upon second and subsequent convictions there is a fine of $1,000 and/or six months in jail. If the possession of explosives is such a serious matter, and I submit that it is because people have been murdered through their illegal use as apparently was the case in Toronto recently, is the penalty provided sufficient? If that is the case, if the government looks seriously upon the possession of explosives and wants to set up a great number of restrictions, as it is rightly doing as far as one class of explosive is concerned, surely it should provide more meaningful penalties, especially when lives are at stake. It is true that murder carries with it another penalty, but none the less there is the possibility of extensive damage and injury to persons and property. I wonder at the penalties being out of balance with the serious view that the government takes of explosives themselves.
In our society we have precious little freedom left. Every day that goes by, the Parliament of Canada, some provincial legislature, some regional district or municipal council or some school board or other body with authority to enact bylaws impinges on the rights and freedoms of the people of this land. The activities of this multiplicity of bodies confine and restrict our freedom. Our freedom to live our own lives untrammelled and unfettered by restrictions has been taken away. We can no longer do that today. Attitudes and concepts changed over the years.
I was born and grew up for the first few years of my life in a hard rock mining community, and it was common practice for people who worked underground to bring home two or three sticks of 20 per cent dynamite powder in their lunch buckets. They saved them up. They kept them in the basement or up on a shelf. When they went out in the bush, they used the powder to blow stumps or for prospecting. We used to get C.M.&S. Company to finance prospectors so that people could stake and work mineral claims. As kids, we had pretty free access to the powder magazine. Anyone could walk in and out. We often took some powder. We never took a whole container,

March 22, 1972
Explosives Act
because we thought that too dangerous. Nevertheless, we often took three, four or five blasting caps from the powder magazine. The magazine was unlocked. There was no lock on the door so far as I can remember, and the kids used to wander all over the place. We would walk to the rock dump, throw these blasting caps down and hear them exploding.


Mr. Francis:: I hope the hon. member does not approve of this now?


Frank Howard: I have improved a little bit. I no longer use that type of explosive approach.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I said approve, not improve.


Frank Howard: I am trying to say that we showed a respectful attitude to explosives. I do not know anyone in Kimberley who was injured by blasting caps. When you grow up with explosives, you soon learn what you can and cannot do, that explosives are dangerous if improperly used, and that certain precautions must be observed. On the other hand, when you grow up in a community in which miners bring home bits of dynamite in lunch buckets, you learn to understand explosives. One learns to adopt a certain attitude to explosives, and this attitude is not learned in other places.
The attitude to explosives of those Canadians who live in metropolitan and urban areas is different from the attitude of those who live in rural areas. People living in rural areas, in farming communities, will tell you of farmers using explosives for all manner of purposes on the farm. They will tell you of farmers combining a certain type of fertilizer with diesel fuels and a detonator-I do not know what they use as a detonator; I think four of five sticks of dynamite would serve-and blasting holes in the ground for holding water. That is pretty common. You never hear of that in the city, but that is pretty common in rural areas. Also, people in the rural areas like to make their own cartridges. They make them in basements, sheds or garages. They weigh the powder carefully, pack it into cartridges and make their own shells. Under this bill, such people will be deemed to be operating a factory and will need to be licensed and controlled by the minister or whoever will make and enforce these particular regulations.
It seems to me that it is unwise to foist the concepts of city dwellers regarding explosives on country folk. Different considerations are involved as between rural and urban areas. I doubt whether those who drew the bill or any members of cabinet know anything about making homemade cartridges. The people who make their own cartridges make them for their own use. They go out hunting. They make them instead of buying cartridges by mail order from the Timothy Eaton Company, Simpsons-Sears or the hardware store in town. If the bill in its present form is passed, all that will change. All these freedoms of people in the rural areas will be impinged upon and taken away. They will be forced to obtain licenses if they want to own a gun for hunting. They need a hunting license, of course, and they will need a license with which to buy shells for the gun. Of course, the person selling the shells will also need a license. Therefore, these

restrictions and confinements just do not make sense, especially to people in rural areas.
Whether these arguments will be acceptable to the minister and the department I do not know. I hope they are. I hope, when we consider the bill in committee, some of these ideas will be considered. If there are to be restrictions on explosives, let them be justifiable restrictions, yes. But for heaven sake do not expand them and make rules and regulations applying to the relatively innocent purchase of ordinary cartridges and rifles used for hunting or for self protection. I think it is unwise to restrict greatly by legislation people who simply want to live their lives as best they can and go about their innocent business without intending to hurt anybody.
Criminals, or people with criminal intent, Mr. Speaker, will find ways of circumventing the rules, no matter how strict they are. People with criminal intent will find a way to obtain explosives, just as they have in the past. They will obtain cartridges, just as they have in the past. They will obtain small arms, machine guns and all the other weaponry necessary for the carrying out of their criminal acts, just as they are now doing and as they have done in the past. Regardless of the severity of restrictions, they will still go about their way. Those of a dissenting point of view will still find ways, if they desire, of expressing their dissent or disagreement, either with explosives or any other substances, no matter how strict the rules are.
We must all be deeply concerned about the fractures in our society. There must be deep understanding and feeling, and a desire to correct matters, so that violence does not appeal to those who want to correct present circumstances that they cannot support. We ought to try to change our social ethics and establish some other form of value system in our society. We must establish different mechanisms or meaningful channels for enabling people to express their frustrations, so that someone in authority can listen to those frustrations and take corrective action. The more we oppress, the more the state seeks to legislate, control, confine, restrict and deny freedoms, the more people who are dissatisfied will find a way to rupture the existing order and break out. I am very much afraid this could easily be the case if this legislation becomes law in its present form. This is the feature the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) mentioned.
The drafting of regulations, the administration and enforcement of those regulations, which are in fact law, is done by people within the public service structure. Many of them really do not know what life is all about. Many of them do not know what it is like to live in a rural area. By starting with the ivory tower approach, and by applying the full powers of this law to the possession of a box of .22 shells, we will create more trouble for society than we can conceive at this time. I am not sure that that is the intention of the legislation or the minister. My remarks may have been critical. In a sense, they were designed to get across a point of view that I hope will be accepted by the minister. When we proceed further with the bill, these views should be reflected in the law so that it will be beneficial to the whole of society, not damaging.
March 22, 1972


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself to a large extent with the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I thought that many of his observations were accurate. One of the things that has occurred to me, and which I have observed over the years, has been the proliferation of quasi-criminal statutes which, in my opinion, could have been implemented in the Criminal Code. If this had been done, it would have resulted in a greater amount of freedom for the individual.
I agree that people in the industrial and mining environment, and in rural areas, live in a different way from those in urban areas, many of whom have had no occasion to use explosives for sporting, recreational or any other purpose. However, this is certainly not the case in large areas of Canada. Within my own experience, I have known many people who worked for the railroad. They have had in their possession railroad fusees, torpedoes and other devices which have gunpowder in them and which would probably fall under the definition of explosives. If there were an over-zealous inspector who was anxious to impress everyone with his own authority, there could be a very unsatisfactory situation.
Let us look at the definition of inspector which is found on page 2 under clause 1(3). An inspector could turn into a very officious individual if he wished to develop the full extent of his considerable powers set out in the definition. Under the present proposal, he could go into an individual's vehicle or factory. He could invade the privacy of an ordinary individual ostensibly in the process of trying to enforce this act. In my opinion, this is a real danger. I know from personal experience that when officials are given the power to act like policemen, they often abuse their discretion, just as many police officers adopt the philosophy that convictions mean promotions or advancement. I would like to see the government take a very close look at this office which is being created under the terms of Bill C-7.
In attempting to promote a very worthwhile object, that is controlling the indiscriminate use of explosives, the ultimate objective of which I presume is to curtail violence, the government may be over-reacting. As far as I know, there has not been a great number of prosecutions under the existing piece of legislation which is being amended. I cannot help but think that in many respects the government is over-reacting. If people wish to commit violent acts or protest by committing illegal acts, the possibilities are endless. Surely far more or at least as much harm could be done by the use of poisons as by explosives. We hope this will never occur, but just as gunpowder and explosive devices are very easy to obtain, the mind boggles at what revolutionaries could do with poison. Herbicides, pesticides and insecticides are poisons. Whole reservoirs could be poisoned. Very noxious poisons could be introduced into restaurants or commonly used beverages. This affords just as much opportunity to commit acts of anarchy as does the use of explosives. The only thing is this has not happened so far. We hope that it never does. To react to the point where ordinary use of explosives is hampered for those people who have good cause to use them in their every-day lives, as pointed out by the hon. member for Skeena, is certainly an over-reaction.
Explosives Act
When one gets officials who are over-zealous, amazingly absurd things can happen. I can foresee, under the new definition of explosives in clause 1 of this bill, where some over-zealous inspector or other official can come down hard on the local Kingsmen Club's fireworks display. Children's Hallowe'en celebrations could technically be in violation of this type of statutory prohibition. This is absolutely absurd. I hope specific steps will be taken to change the definitions and some of the clauses as well. It is a strange situation when we make available remedies for expedient enforcement, and then find that those people who are enforcing them do not have either the training or common sense to discriminate between what is in fact an illegitimate or premeditated breach of the law or an inadvertant or harmless breach.
As I said a few moments ago, we find police officers who think that convictions mean promotions. This is officially denied by police inspectors and those in charge. However, I know better. I know there are very few warnings given in comparison to the number of prosecutions. That is a bad and needless practice. Someone will not have more respect for the law if he is the victim of what might be called a cheap charge. It disturbs me greatly to see an act which is made more severe on an indiscriminate basis and purports to give an inspector, as defined in clause 1(3) of this bill, the type of powers he has.
If the government does not see fit to specifically limit the powers of an inspector, I hope it will make very clear as a matter of policy that it frowns upon cheap charges. If miners, railway men or anyone else who has a legitimate excuse for having in his possession any type of material or device which technically falls under the definition of explosives, and officials proceed to take action, I hope that, as a matter of policy, the government will make very clear that this is something it does not sanction. If many of these instances occur, instead of being a cause for commendation or advancement, those persons who take advantage of their position to enforce and interpret these regulations strictly should be demoted. If that were the case the idea would get across pretty quickly that, although the people charged with enforcing the law have the means to deal expediently with genuine law breakers who menace society, if they in any way abused their powers they would either be censored or demoted, instead of, as is all too common, not being reprimanded at all for acting in this way.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, owing to parliamentary duties I have not been able to be here to listen to the speeches given this afternoon on Bill C-7. However, I think it is fair to say that there is certainly a difference of opinion about its contents, an honest difference of opinion as expressed by members from different parties. I should like to take this opportunity to express my opinion on the bill.
I agree in principle with the provisions of the bill. According to the explanatory note, the general purpose of these amendments to the Explosives Act is to provide for greater control over explosives, especially in those areas relating to the purchase, possession and transportation thereof. It appears there is a difference in approach taken by members who represent urban ridings compared with

March 22, 1972
Explosives Act
those who represent rural ridings. The members in country ridings are fearful of the regulations that are to be imposed upon people in country areas who use cartridges and so on.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) said that the bill appears to adopt a law and order approach, and probably it does. The problem with law and order approaches these days is that many people construe the term "law and order" as a Spiro Agnew approach whereby violence is met with violence. We have had dramatic demonstrations of this in the United States, such as the one at Kent University, and other places, where dissident groups demonstrated. Many people, more especially democratically minded people, become excited and grow fearsome of this law and order approach. I would hope that when we talk about a law and order approach we are talking of strengthening democratic institutions, of giving the people the right to dissent, but at the same time giving them the right peacefully to demonstrate in support of the ideas they hope to express. Because in the final analysis, democracy depends upon persuasion. I do not think it depends on persuasion by means of violence, otherwise we fall into the dictatorship trap. Democracy depends upon peaceful persuasion, and I would hope that we embrace that concept when we talk of law and order.
We have seen instances in Canada of disorder. A recent incident took place in Toronto during the visit of Premier Kosygin when a group of people attempted to demonstrate, not in a peaceful manner but in a violent manner. They demonstrated not only against his visit but against the things for which they thought he stood. These people are perfectly entitled to their views on what Premier Kosygin stands for, and I would be the last to deny them the right to demonstrate. But in so demonstrating, I think they must employ peaceful means. We had another example of this when Premier Kosygin visited Ottawa and was attacked by a person on Parliament Hill. This could have led to an international incident. These are the types of actions that I do not think fall within the democratic process of rightful dissent, and I think we should take steps to curtail such expressions.
In the 1970 crisis in Quebec, commonly referred to as the FLQ crisis, there was evidence that members of the FLQ had obtained explosives by means of criminal acts and other methods. This again created a fear among many people in the country that the members of the FLQ were not acting in accordance with law and order. It was felt that they would have done far better if they had used the democratic process and attempted to persuade others of the validity of their cause.
Many members who come from country ridings have had wide experience with the use of explosives, more especially guns and ammunition, but I would hope that they would see the necessity for controlling guns and ammunition. At the moment, you need a licence to obtain certain guns, and perhaps when this bill is passed and the regulations published certain steps will have to be taken before a person can obtain ammunition. I would hope that within the areas of their responsibility they would accept these restrictions in order to control violence of the kind we have in Canada today.
[Mr. Gilbert.)
As a person of Irish parentage I take no comfort from what is happening in Ireland today. When I hear of the bombings and explosions which take place there, it makes me speak out for some control of explosive materials. I therefore find I must express myself in favour of the principle of this bill. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said he felt the day may come when there will be a change in the social values held by people and we are able to control explosives in a far better way than that prescribed in Bill C-7. I hope the day does come when we take that approach.
I am reminded of the approach taken by English policemen-or, as they call them in England, "bobbies"-to the use of guns and the carrying of guns. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) said that some officers in Canada measure their hopes for success and promotion on the number of convictions they obtain, that sometimes they lay charges that are cheap in nature to obtain convictions. I wonder whether, if we took the English approach to the carrying of guns by police officers, the police officers here would adopt a totally different attitude, which would lead people in the community to do the same.
I think we are impressed by the violence exhibited in the country to the south of us. It may be the climate of the times which had brought about the use of so many guns and other weaponry in the United States. I hope that we in Canada will take a sensible approach to this gun problem and that in future our policemen, members of the RCMP and other forces, will not carry guns. In this way something might be done to lessen the violence which exists in our own country today. This would be in keeping with the thinking of my hon. friend from Skeena who is usually very progressive in his views. He has taken what is known as a hard line in connection with ammunition because of his experiences as a young man in a small country town. He thought if he could control the use of explosives, then surely other like-minded men and women could do the same.


Frank Howard: You obviously were not listening.


John Gilbert: I should like to think so myself, but I do not believe the facts permit us to reach that conclusion. I would think that a large number of the violent acts which are permitted today are directly attributable to the ease with which guns and ammunition may be obtained, so I would hope steps could be taken to deal with this. My hon. friend from Skeena said criminals would find a way to obtain guns and ammunition in any case. They probably would. But I respectfully submit that we as citizens have a duty to make it difficult for them to find a way. This is why there have to be regulations concerning guns and ammunition. A social responsibility rests on members from rural ridings. If people who live there want guns and ammunition, they could follow certain procedures which are for the benefit of the community as a whole.
The definitions clause is extremely wide. I note that it embraces rockets, firecrackers and so forth. It is coincidental that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) should have received a letter recently concerning firecrackers. Our first test will be on May 24, and
March 22. 1972

no doubt a day or two afterwards we shall read in the newspapers that young people have lost their lives, their sight or their limbs as a result of firecracker explosions and burns. Complaints and representations will be made by parents and others in all parts of the country, followed, no doubt, by undertakings that the authorities will take certain action, but no total prohibition is likely to result. The bill before us will impose some measure of control over firecrackers. The hon. member for Central Nova suggested that a group of Kiwanis might be prohibited from holding a display of firecrackers. I hope such a day will never come. We have learned from experience that firecrackers, to be safe, must be placed in the hands of responsible people. I should like to read a letter which has been received by my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby on this subject.
Dear Mr. Broadbent:
The members of the Duke of Edinburgh Home and School Association of Oshawa asked me to write you to ask that you support us in the following proposal: That firecrackers be banned in Canada.
We understand that the Explosives Act is now in the House of Commons for amendment. Perhaps this request is too late for this year, but we would like action started now so that by next year this problem will not exist.
We are not asking that all fireworks be banned, just the ten cents package kind that have no display value. These kind are easily attained by children and are the cause of 95 per cent of all firecracker burns.
Three provinces have banned them already. Could Ontario be next? Eventually Canada!
All fireworks are imported so it wouldn't be a hardship for any Canadian maker.
Mrs. Margaret McBurney, a Toronto mother, whose son was injured by firecrackers last year, has started this movement. She is now being supported by several other associations. The Home and School Association in this area would like to add their wholehearted support. We are in the process now of getting support from Ontario County Council of Home and School and eventually support from the province of Ontario.
We feel certain that this is a worthy cause. There are statistics available through the Ontario Safety League. We would be glad to send you further information if desired.
May we ask that you voice an opinion on our behalf when the Explosives Act is read again?
Sincerely,
Mrs. Mary Turpin, Vice-President,
Duke of Edinburgh Home and School Association
I believe the contents of this letter should be studied carefully and that action should, perhaps, be taken along the lines suggested. It would be difficult, I suppose, simply to ban firecrackers of the "ten cent package kind". We should probably need to legislate with respect to firecrackers in general and, perhaps, to adopt regulations controlling the manufacture of certain types, more especially, defining who may buy them, who may sell them and who may use them.
These are some of the approaches I should like to see taken in connection with the bill before us. I have a certain confidence that the minister who has introduced the measure will show qualities of maturity and wisdom, that he will retain the principle of the bill while accommodating some of the suggestions which have been put forward by hon. members who have spoken against the legislation.
Explosives Act


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill seems to be fairly stated in the explanatory note, namely, to ensure stricter control over the use of explosives. Presumably the need for greater control is justified on the grounds that private citizens have made increased use of explosives in order to carry out anti-social acts at the political or at the criminal level. With this concept I agree wholeheartedly. I support the principle thus outlined.
I have some few reservations, and I hope to put them on record in the time remaining to me. It can be said that Bill C-7 is designed to achieve its purpose by tightening up and extending the control presently exercised by the federal government over explosives within the area already occupied by the central administration. In addition, it appears that controls are extended into an area which, in my opinion, has been considered one which was subject to provincial legislation. A further aspect to be considered is the possibility of interference with personal liberty. Such interference can be considered upon two levels, interference at the regulatory stage and interference at the prosecution stage.
In this connection, as I read the act it would appear to be capable of some abuse. In respect of our regulatory control of explosives, the most important is the new power given to the governor in council to make regulations respecting the purchase and possession of explosives. With the present power over sale, these additions would give the governor in council complete power and control over explosives in the hands of the seller, the buyer and the possessor. In the old act, and extended in this legislation, there are provisions covering manufacturing, testing, storage and importation. This proposed regulatory power is matched by a proposed new offence. Clause 3 Section 5 is to be amended as follows:
Except as authorized under this Act and subject to such exemptions as may be provided by regulation, no person shall
(d) have in his possession any explosive;


Mr. Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member. I try to give as much leeway as possible in considering this bill, but I must remind hon. members that when they make statements in connection with the bill the rules do not permit a detailed consideration of the individual clauses of the bill. I hope the hon. member, as much as possible, will limit his contribution to the general intent, purport and principle of the bill.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and apologize for mentioning a section of the bill. I did it merely to point out the provision that no person shall have in his possession any explosive. This in my opinion is a typical example of bureaucratic over-kill. Very few criminal offences have been caused in this country by registered firearms or properly and legally purchased explosives. So I say we should not crucify the respectable sportsman, the buff who collects guns and the people who engage in skeet and trap shooting. Many of these people load their own shells. They do so because they are able to make a more precise load at probably a third of the normal cost. I suggest that a close surveillance of explosives in the hands of construction people, and in the hands of people

March 22, 1972
Explosives Act
engaged in mining and quarrying as well, is quite in order. I would support that. But to compare a box of .22 calibre shells with a case of dynamite or a jug of nitro-glycerine is, to say the least, ludicrous. Under this bill they are all in the same bag.
I would suggest further that if those who drafted this legislation believe that it will be an immediate panacea for the improvement of law and order in this country, I think they are engaging in wishful thinking. In my opinion nothing could be much further from the truth. In this bill I believe we are making it more difficult for our law-abiding citizens. Crooks do not obey the laws. Crooks do not use registered guns nor do they follow proper channels in order to obtain explosives. I am particularly concerned because I do not know what the regulations made under this bill will be. On my farm we have stored about 5 tons of ammonium nitrate. In another place diesel fuel is stored. According to the best information I can obtain, those are the ingredients of a very potent explosive. This legislation would appear to be an example of bureaucratic
red tape. Will my men be prohibited from driving home with a truck loaded with ammonium nitrate?
In my opinion the lumping of a box of .22 calibre shells, a case of dynamite and a jug of nitro-glycerine under the same heading is completely ludicrous. I will, however, support the most stringent regulations to provide for an exact accounting of explosives and registration of firearms. One of my prize possessions is a muzzle-loading shotgun that my great-great grandfather brought out to this country from Ireland. I have spent considerable money on it. It is sound and safe. It has been tested. Occasionally I like to load and fire it. I would hesitate to go through all the red tape that is inherent in this bill so that I could fire my great-great grandfather's muzzle-loading shotgun. Under this bill this would be illegal unless the regulations provide some relief.
Mr. Speaker, I notice it is six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, March 23, 1972