1976-04-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which I am sure will commend itself to the government House leader. The statement today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on marine search and rescue activity admits that the organization is no longer entirely adequate, and this is emphasized by the increasing number of marine accidents in Canadian waters. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Canadian coast guard task force review be referred to a joint committee including National Defence, Transport and Fisheries representatives to make recommendations to the government of Canada on search and rescue policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43 having to do with a matter that is urgent and pressing. I .therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House urges the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour to take all possible steps to prevent a lock-out of Air Canada's finance branch employees at Winnipeg, and this House urges that the right of these employees to job security be recognized by Air Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
As Canadian banks could easily become new creditors of the Lockheed Corporation should this firm have more financial setbacks, since it already owes $700 million to 28 other banks, and as the Department of National Defence of Canada intends to invest several billion dollars in military equipment during the next ten years and we should at all costs avoid creating more misunderstandings and problems such as those we are facing because of the Lockheed Corporation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House discuss now the policy of the Department of National Defence and particularly the specific and serious methods which should be used to establish the future defence programs of this department.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In light of the fact that the wives of the directors and assistant directors of British Columbia Penitentiary and Drumheller Institution have been sworn in as peace officers to escort female prisoners to the federal women's prison in Kingston, Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco):
That this House instruct the Solicitor General to make a statement on motions as soon as possible regarding the unusual procedure used in selecting escorts for women prisoners and furthermore that the Solicitor General assure us that if these women are being used because of the

April 7, 1976
Penitentiaries
acute shortage of qualified staff, he will now see that the proper people are hired.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 such a motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORDER OF CANADA


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion requiring unanimous consent.
Tonight His Excellency the Governor General of Canada will admit a number of Canadians to the Order of Canada. Throughout this country many individual Canadians contribute, through their own work or through public and charitable service, above and beyond the average. They do so without any thought of reward and often with the sacrifice of personal pursuits. I move:
That this House therefore affirms its support of the Order of Canada as a public recognition and expression of gratitude to these distinguished citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being unanimous consent, it is therefore moved by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Pru-d'homme), seconded by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lamb-ton (Mr. Cullen):
That this House therefore affirms its support of the Order of Canada as a public recognition and expression of gratitude to these distinguished citizens.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that in excess of 240 property owners and residents in the vicinity of the

proposed medium and maximum security prison in the municipal district of Sturgeon are opposed to the building of this institution on prime agricultural land when more marginal land is nearby and have voiced this opposition to the minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone):
That the Prime Minister remove the Solicitor General from his present portfolio because of the lack of openness that the minister has shown in his dealings with the residents of Pembina by first, on October 28, 1975, stating he would not proceed with the construction of the prison if the residents were opposed and then, on February 25, 1976, by reversing his position by stating that he planned to proceed even though there was considerable objection.
Again, I insist that the Solicitor General-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member brings forward a motion for the removal of the Solicitor General. The rest seems to be debate as opposed to a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Before such a motion may be presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 there must be unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF FOOD INSPECTION SYSTEM-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent and important matter.
As the present legislation of the federal Department of Agriculture leaves the door wide open to gigantic swindles all across Canada through the use of the seal "Canada Approved" in meat classification; as the current number of food inspectors is really inadequate, which state of affairs results in paralyzing the production of law-abiding producers; and, as it is the duty of the government to protect the consumer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House enjoin the government to take all necessary steps to expand the food inspection services, with a view to ensuring that such unpleasant incidents as occurred last fall, in which carrion was distributed in Quebec, do not recur.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF LIEUTENANT-GOVERNORS OF MANITOBA AND SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period I know hon. members would want to join with me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery this afternoon of two distinguished visitors in the persons of the two most recently nominated, and now sworn in, Lieutenant-Governors of our provinces, the first being the Hon. Jean-Paul Jobin, Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Manitoba-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -and the Hon. George Porteous, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to gallop right along.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister with regard to the first ministers' meeting that is to be held in early May what items he has proposed for the agenda and whether he has in mind a private meeting at 24 Sussex Drive or whether he has suggested that at least part of the conference be open?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind if the Leader of the Opposition continues to gallop along, so long as he and his party continue to lose elections. That is fine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Why don't you call the by-election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The meeting is early in May, and the main item on the agenda will be energy pricing.


Charles Joseph Clark: If the preamble was a challenge, we would be prepared to accept it in Ottawa-Carleton.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In light of the importance of the problems before the country, and the concern that the Prime Minister has expressed that there be a nationwide debate on these problems, I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he has not proposed following the format of last year's
Oral Questions
conference at least to the extent that the first part of the meeting is open to the public and that the agenda allow discussion on the general direction of the economy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at all these conferences the agenda and the format, whether it be in camera or before camera is decided by the premiers and myself. I made a proposal to them on the pricing of oil and gas and, based on our previous experiences, I think we unanimously agreed that we were never likely to reach a decision on the appropriate price for oil and gas in front of television cameras and that even in camera it was not certain we would reach agreement but that we had a better chance there than in front of cameras. That is why I suggested this format. Of course, if the premiers reply that they want to have it in front of cameras, that would be acceptable to me.


Charles Joseph Clark: Rather than leaving all the initiatives to the provinces, I wonder if the Prime Minister might canvass his fellow first ministers on the question of expanding both the time and the terms of reference of the meeting, and also canvass them on the possibility of holding at least part of that meeting in public.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have already written to them making a suggestion to them. They usually feel pretty free to express their views, and if they want to have the media and observers present, I am sure they will indicate it.


ALLEGATION ONE PREMIER DESIRES PUBLIC MEETING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: wonder if the Prime Minister would confirm that the only decided opinion he has received from the premiers so far has been an indication from at least one that the meeting should be open to the public and perhaps even extended beyond the one day.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I regret that I have not seen the answer from even one premier as yet. It may have arrived this morning and I will look at it. Naturally, I will be guided by the consensus which develops.


SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF THE AGENDA OF MEETING WITH PREMIERS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Can
the Prime Minister tell us whether he has canvassed the provincial premiers to extend the meeting to include such matters as the breaking in period for the controls, constitutional reforms and many of the other pressing issues which many of the premiers would wish to discuss and hopefully wish to discuss in public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me
remind the House that I did suggest another meeting of first ministers to be held in mid-June at which we would be looking more at the general economic matters, particularly the fiscal arrangements, equalization plans, and so on. Naturally, it is unlikely that we will take all the time, either in early May or in mid-June, discussing just the one item. I am sure that the premiers would want to bring

April 7, 1976
Oral Questions
other concerns. Whether they will let me know in advance by way of a suggested agenda or whether we will raise the subject informally when we meet is something which will be determined by the premiers and myself.
I repeat at this time that I have made a suggestion to them in line with our collectively expressed hopes at the last meetings, that we would try to meet in this way. If the premiers have other views, I would gladly entertain them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I wonder if the Prime Minister could at least undertake that the premiers will be canvassed as to whether there will be an open meeting or a closed meeting-and I certainly hope it will be open-and that the public at large and the members of this House would know in advance what the agenda is and the terms of that agenda.


Mr. Woolliams:: Why all the secrecy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asks why all the secrecy. I think hon. members will understand that in the matter of 10 provincial premiers and the federal government trying to decide whether the price of oil at the wellhead in Alberta and Saskatchewan should remain at $8 or go up to some other figure, it is not likely that great amounts of public discussion will bring us any closer to a unanimous feeling. There was a meeting between the energy ministers just a few weeks ago. They spent quite some time trying to make progress toward a common position, and they were unable to do so.


Mr. Stanfield:: That was in private.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That was in private. I doubt whether within this House or within the Tory Party there is any one feeling on what the price of energy should be. If the members of the Tory Party could open their caucuses to the public so that we would be hearing their discussions on the price of oil, perhaps they could reach unanimity, and then that would prove-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In his recent television interview the minister acknowledged that the spending of approximately $1 billion on 18 Orion aircraft is based primarily on the assumption that they will head off a war of attrition in continental Europe by ensuring protective covering for convoys, a view of war which I would have thought disappeared in about 1945, and since most of the defence budget's allocation for new equipment for the next four or five years will go into the Orion aircraft, which the government concedes, would the minister explain briefly to the House why the government is putting all its eggs in this particular basket?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are not putting all our eggs in this basket, but we do have very strong reasons for wanting to proceed. As I have already explained to the house, this aircraft is the most cost effective of any of the alternatives. Its purchase also provides the greatest number of industrial benefits to Canada. However, in addition to that, this aircraft meets several major objectives of this country which have been mentioned in this House for the last three or four years. First, we will be obtaining new equipment for the Canadian armed forces.


Mr. Forrestall:: Is that a promise?


James Armstrong Richardson: We will be meeting our commitment to the NATO alliance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: First time.


An hon. Member:: When?


James Armstrong Richardson: Most important of all, as a sovereign nation this country will be able to know what is going on in the oceans which surround Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In his answer, the minister confirmed that he is preparing in a magnificent way for the second world war. He did not deny that the basic assumption for the purchase of the Orion aircraft is to protect convoys which are to be used only if there is a prolonged war in continental Europe which, on behalf of my party, I assert is an absolutely absurd priority. However, the white paper on defence states that our first defence priority is to maintain Canadian sovereignty. In the words of the minister on other occasions, the Orion purchase is primarily a NATO commitment. Given the amount of capital it would take up in the next three years, I should like to ask the minister how he intends to meet the number one defence priority stated by his own government, and, specifically, how we are going to provide patrols for the protection of our fisheries or for the control of pollution?


James Armstrong Richardson: To respond to those questions in order, let me say that our major objective is to play our part in achieving international stability, and the way we do that is by helping our NATO partners to achieve a balance of military force, a balance which for 25 or 30 years has maintained a peaceful world. That is what we are trying to do, not only by acquiring long range aircraft but by re-equipping our armed forces in other ways. We are also able to meet the other objectives of carrying out surveillance of our fishing fleets and surveillance of the north at the same time.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the absolute absurdity of the government's position, would the minister acknowledge that the main reason for going ahead with this deal is to live up to the government's perception of Canada's obligation to purchase more equipment from the United States because of its view of our past failure in terms of the defence provision sharing agreements-the Americans simply want us to spend a little more on the equipment they have produced.
April 7, 1976


James Armstrong Richardson: I think the hon. member might direct some of his inquiries on the buildup of aircraft and military equipment to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. We have clear evidence that the Soviet Union has been building up its military strength far beyond its defence requirements. We are playing our part in NATO to help to create a balance of military force which will be strong enough to maintain peace in the world.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Would the minister advise the House as the results which have come up from the secret discussions between Mrs. Francis, an official of his department, and COJO representatives and other agencies eager to give a good image of Canada and Quebec during the preparation for the games and the actual Olympic Games in Montreal?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am not aware of such discussions, secret or otherwise.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: They are so secret the minister does not know about them!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
The meeting which Mrs. Francis attended took place late in February, that means over a month ago and we still did not get any information regarding the outcome. Would the minister tell the House whether or not there is an international anti-Olympic campaign going on which might distort not only the image of Canada and Quebec in the whole world but also significantly reduce the impact of the policies carried out by various departments, federal or provincial, and which were aiming at publicizing the games and Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will make inquires about the meeting that the hon. member suggests was held a week or a month ago. As far as Canada's image with respect to the Olympics is concerned, that will be determined by Canada because no move, to my knowledge, has been engineered in any other part of the world.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General who has been unusually silent with regard to a number of inquiries undertaken by his department. I suggest the people of Canada should be enlightened. Can the Solicitor General inform us as to the status of the following RCMP investigations: Sky Shops, the SIU, the Olympic village, cleaning contracts, Mirabel? Can he advise the House whether any charges are pending at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know whether the hon. member is serious in suggesting the Solicitor General should be given an opportunity to report on all those matters at the same time.


An hon. Member:: Just one would do.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I said many times, it is not the custom to comment in the House on police investigations while they are under way. I can say this about the Sky Shops investigation: the investigation has been completed and the evidence given to the Quebec Department of Justice for consideration relating to prosecution. All the other investigations are still under way and many witnesses are yet to be interviewed.


PENITENTIARIES
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I am not so much concerned about the investigations involving the minister's department. I am talking about the chaotic situation in penitentiaries in which we find a great deal of unrest, overcrowding, suicide-


An hon. Member:: From which prisoners escape.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -and questionable administrative practices. I am talking about the institutions at Archambault, Millhaven, Drumheller, about the B.C. penitentiary, Dorchester and, last but not least, Prince Albert. Is the minister aware of the very serious conditions in those institutions? Will he look into the matter? If so, when can we expect action and a report from the minister?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, these are all penitentiaries with very dangerous people inside.


Mr. Paproski:: You sound more like the Prime Minister every day.

Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


MARINE SEARCH AND RESCUE-MEASURES TO ENSURE EFFICIENCY OF ORGANIZATION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport may I direct my question to the Minister of National Defence? As the Minister of Transport in the statement released at eleven o'clock this morning, made the tragic admission that the marine search and rescue organization is no longer entirely adequate; as, so far this year, ten fishermen on the east and west coasts of Canada have lost their lives; and as the special task force report will not be ready for cabinet until mid-1976, may I ask the minister what immediate steps he, as the minister responsible, is taking to ensure the maximum efficiency of the service protecting our fishermen?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is a division of responsibility. The Department of National Defence is responsible for the air search, the Department of Transport for the coastal or marine aspect of search and rescue. I cannot comment on the statement my colleague made this morning, because I have not seen it or talked to him.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The division of responsibility is precisely at the core of the present situation. While the minister is considering spending millions of dollars to purchase equipment from a company in the United States, could he not find a few more extra dollars with which to provide our fishermen protection until the task force report is ready?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the long-range patrol aircraft we are buying will help us know the positions of fishing fleets, which is important in search and rescue operations.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF CONFLICTING STATEMENTS ON ADEQUACY OF MARINE SEARCH AND RESCUE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. On April 8, 1975, 365 days ago, the minister said in this House, as reported on page 4595 of Hansard, that our air-sea rescue facilities were, in his view, adequate. Today, on April 7, 1976, the Minister of Transport said they are inadequate. Is the minister prepared to alter the record? Will he get it straight, please?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that I was not responding with respect to the responsibilities of the Ministry of Transport, which has a responsibility for the marine side of search and rescue. Many successful rescues have been made involving not only search from the air but by the Department of Transport as well. I was referring to the adequacy of the service in that sense.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister saying that there have been no consultations at all involving those two

departments of government on this important matter? Meanwhile, we are still losing fishermen on both coasts.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not saying that. There have been close and continuing consultations between the Departments of Transport and National Defence on this matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from his answer to me of Monday, when he told me that in the past year some 5,516 foreign diplomats accused of breaking Canadian laws could not be charged because they invoked diplomatic immunity. As in no case could the charge be considered as harassment preventing the diplomat from discharging official responsibilities in Canada, I ask the minister, what is the government doing to prod recalcitrant governments, presently thumbing their noses at Canadian law, to ask their diplomats to abide by Canadian law and accept responsibility for their actions in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am familiar with the information made available in response to the hon. member's question. Foreign diplomats in Canada are beneficiaries, so to speak, of diplomatic immunity, and our diplomats in other countries have similar privileges. I believe that diplomats resident in Canada ought to look at this general performance and determine among themselves if there is no way to conform with Canadian practice. We encourage Canadian diplomats abroad to observe the laws of their host countries and not to escape from those laws under the general blanket of immunity.


HABITAT CONFERENCE IN VANCOUVER-MEASURES TO ENSURE PAYMENT OF HOTEL BILLS BY DELEGATES
Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As many delegates attending the Stockholm conference on the environment, in 1972, left Stockholm without paying their hotel and other bills, what action will the government take to make sure that delegates attending the Habitat conference in Vancouver will not leave the country before paying their hotel and other bills?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that will be a difficulty with Habitat. I think that guests in Vancouver will, with the assistance of hotel operators, pay their bills.
April 7, 1976


POST OFFICE
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General.
In the light of the situation prevailing in downtown Montreal post offices where postal employees systematically refuse to serve the general public in either official languages, could the Postmaster General inform members of the House if the classification of bilingual positions is completed, when he will proceed with the identification of bilingual positions and if employees filling these positions will be paid according to their additional linguistic aptitude?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the latter part of the question, it is for Treasury Board to say if workers in the Post Office or other government departments who must work in both languages will be compensated financially. The working language in the post office in Montreal has been, basically, French, to everybody's satisfaction. Slightly more than 300 jobs or positions in the Quebec region are classed as bilingual, and most were so designated when the Official Languages Act was implemented. I am glad to say that strangers, tourists, English speaking minorities in Quebec and French speaking people in places like St. Boniface and Vancouver are entitled to enter their post office and be served in their official language. I intend to see that policy carried out in the Montreal post office as well as in the St. Boniface or Vancouver post offices, and, indeed, in any other post office in Canada.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. As the minister admitted that his department let two contracts to a company owned by a public servant and a member of his family, contrary to what he said in the House on Monday, and since the government is in the habit of awarding contracts to companies whose principal owners are unknown, will the minister set out guidelines for contract tendering in his department which will require companies, before they can be considered for contracts, to disclose who their principal owners are?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a complex question. An administrative group is looking into that precise matter.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Oh, yes, how many horses do you have on the payroll?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Department of Public Works does not require infor-
Oral Questions
mation concerning wages paid to workers employed by firms which obtain government contracts, will the minister so frame the guidelines as to make sure that firms which obtain contracts pay their workers at least the minimum federal wage?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it is one of the terms of all of the contracts for cleaning entered into that a scale of wages recommended to us by the Department of Labour will be paid.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. It might be regarded as supplementary to the previous question. There are reports of other troubles in the Montreal post office, including the theft of mails by supervisory personnel. Can the Postmaster General either confirm or deny those reports and what action is he taking to deal with this problem?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have always said that there are not going to be two different measures of justice in the post office. Five supervisors in question have been suspended. I felt there was sufficient evidence in the case of at least two to proceed with criminal charges and that has already taken place.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. It is in connection with the fact that the report of the Hon. Emmett Hall is now ready, that is the conciliation report with respect to the dispute between railway workers and management. Has the minister any indication from either side how long it will take to determine whether the conclusions of the Hon. Emmett Hall are acceptable to the protagonists in this matter?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. No, there has been no reaction. I expect a reaction from the parties some time later this afternoon. I will be able to comment on it with more exactitude to the hon. member and others tomorrow.


John Allen Fraser: In view of the seriousness of this dispute to the economy of the country, can the minister advise whether there is any indication now that in the absence of acceptance by either side, both sides are prepared to continue negotiations on the basis of the conclusions reached

April 7, 1976
Oral Questions
by the Hon. Emmett Hall? Does the minister have up-to-date information in that regard?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I can only express the hope that the report of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall will form the basis of a settlement. I think the hon. member and the House will agree that he has been an exceedingly able labour negotiator and arbitrator in the past. In terms of credibility and fairness, he stands high with both parties. That is the basis for some optimism.



PENITENTIARIES


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It relates to my earlier Standing Order 43 regarding the wife of the director of the British Columbia institution and the wife of the assistant director of the Drumheller institution and the fact they are acting as escorts of inmates going to Kingston penitentiary. Is the minister aware this has been going on and does he consider it a good policy for the penitentiary system?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this particular incident. However, I am advised it is not an exceptional procedure with women inmates. Since these transfers do not take place that often, full time matrons cannot always be found to do this work and they find that other people can do it just as well.


John Douglas Reynolds: Will the Solicitor General check into this to find out whether any training is being given to these wives, what their qualifications are and the number of trips they have taken in the past year?


William Warren Allmand: I will be pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could the minister tell the House the criteria or circumstances that sometimes prompt the Immigration Appeal Board to review decisions previously made by Unemployment Insurance Commission officers?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to go into more detail than the question period will permit. However, I will be glad to give the hon. member full information on that issue and the procedures, in any exchange that we can arrange.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. I will put my question to the Acting Minister of Transport. With air travel out of Toronto and Canada having plateaued and as such travel now will come under the original Ministry of Transport forecasts, will the acting minister indicate what the government plans to do with the Pickering area lands expropriated by the government and which are now presumably not needed for a further airport in that location?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I could give a vague answer, but I know the hon. member likes to deal in specifics. Therefore, I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he would answer.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly bring this question to the attention of the minister.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence, I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Does the Minister of Agriculture intend to make a statement on changes and revisions in the 1976-77 dairy policy in the House or will the contents of that statement be in the form of a press release, either from his office or the office of the Canadian Dairy Commission?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the dairy policy will be made within the next two or three days by the minister in or outside the House. It rests with the minister to decide how to proceed.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the delay further evidence of the minister's inability to convince his cabinet colleagues of the need to adequately support the Canadian dairy industry?


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with the policy to be announced in a few days.
April 7, 1976



DATE OF COMPLETION OF STUDY OF MEASURES TO PREVENT FLOODING IN MONTREAL AREA

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister report a completion date for the study, jointly undertaken by his predecessor and the Quebec provincial government minister in 1974, to investigate what action could be taken in respect of the high water levels in the back river of Montreal and the Lake of Two Mountains to reduce the damage from the flooding which has recurred again this year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the undertaking then taken by the Minister of the Environment was carried out. Within a few weeks I should receive an interim report and in June we will get the official report on the study made on floodings of rivers in the vicinity of Montreal.



MANPOWER


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
The great majority of members acknowledge the value of the Local Initiatives Program and its favourable effects on reducing unemployment during the difficult periods of the year. The Richmond constituency benefitted from this program and greatly appreciates it.
In connection with the LIP, can the minister assure the House that it will be renewed for the year 1976-77 and if so can he say whether the budget earmarked for the LIP will be as substantial as last year's?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the decision announced in the House in, I believe, December which indicated that the budget for 1976-77 will be $100 million for a program that might be adapted in some ways, but it will be essentially the same as and have the objectives of the Local Initiatives Program.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is the minister in a position to say on what criteria or general standards the government will base the distribution of the budget earmarked for the Local Initiatives Program among the various parts of Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the formula for distribution of the funds has been a matter of public record for several years. Essentially, it has increasingly been directed to
Oral Questions
areas of high unemployment. That is the intention when we develop the formula for the winter of 1976-77.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister, through sources in Thailand or through the United Nations, received any further information on the situation in Cambodia about which there is considerable disquiet and several questions have been asked in the House in recent weeks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to get reliable information from Cambodia at the present time with respect to any violations of human rights that may exist. As I mentioned in reply to an earlier question, we are concerned about any violation of human rights which may take place. There is, as the hon. member may know, a sub-commission of the United Nations on discrimination and protection of minorities which is responsible for monitoring these situations, but that body takes up questions only when reports are made by individuals or groups who have direct and reliable knowledge as to the occurrence of such violations in the area.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the rejection of this country apparently by the government there and the abrupt change of head of state in Cambodia, and in view of the stories that have trickled out from Cambodia, is Canada considering withdrawing its recognition and aid to the Khmer Rouge regime as an indication of our concern?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we do not provide any aid, humanitarian or otherwise, to that particular country.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It has been reported today that 68 new permits have been issued on native land in the Northwest Territories covering 12 million acres, an increase of over 375 per cent over last year's 18 permits. Would the minister confirm the report or otherwise; and further, would he advise the House why he did not-and I repeat, did not-consult with the Inuit Taparisat prior to the issue of those permits, as had apparently been promised in their presentation to cabinet on February 27 of this year?

April 7, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the issuance of these permits but I will be happy, as the hon. member requests, to look into the matter and get a report.



EFFECT OF REPEAL OF SECTION 272 OF RAILWAY ACT ON FLOUR AND GRAIN EXPORTS-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister studied the effect on Canada's flour and grain exports which repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act would have through passage of Bill C-87? If so, has the minister been able to come up with suggestions to overcome the harm that would occur to trade from eastern ports and to the flour milling industry?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of representations on the subject and I am doing exactly what the hon. member suggests, namely seeing what the impact will be and also having discussions with the Minister of Transport and his officials on the issue.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister act quickly and announce that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Transport will not be allowed to cut the throats of the ports of Montreal, Halifax and Saint John and of the flour milling industry?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister report to the House the status of unemployment in those native communities where mercury poisoning has taken place; and specifically, what initiatives is the department taking to increase employment in light of this disastrous mercury poisoning which has so devastatingly taken away jobs in native communities?


J. Judd Buchanan: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of this unemployment was created prior to the mercury poisoning and as a result of the relocation of these communities. The situation now is that we have been working with the chiefs of the Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves in an effort to tie together some manpower training funds from my colleague's department and funds from the welfare department. We are optimistic that by working with the chiefs and councils we will be able to

make a significant impact on the current unemployment situation.


Arnold John Malone: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister report to the House whether the jurisdictional question with the provinces has been resolved in regard to mercury poisoning in native communities; and specifically what obligations are being entered into by the companies that caused the mercury poisoning in respect of compensation to the native peoples?


J. Judd Buchanan: In reply to the first question, Mr. Speaker, basically we are endeavouring to work directly with the native peoples. We have a co-ordinator for our department who is endeavouring to work with them and assist them in the creation of jobs. So far as the legal obligations of the company are concerned, I am afraid the situation is much more difficult. We have offered to assist the band in taking the company to court. However, there does not seem to be a desire on their part to pursue that course.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question either to the Minister of the Environment or the Secretary of State for External Affairs; I am not sure into which category my question will fall. Since it is in connection with the Garrison diversion project in the state of Minnesota, perhaps it might be addressed to the Minister of the Environment. Have there been discussions between Canadian and United States officials on possible changes, structural or otherwise, to the actual physical building of the Garrison diversion project? If so, can the minister report to the House what these changes are?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have met the United States ambassador and I will eventually meet the person responsible for environment in Washington to discuss all these problems.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question. Might I ask the Minister of the Environment whether, following his discussions with his counterpart in the United States, he would agree to make a statement in the House to inform the Canadian people, especially people in Manitoba, exactly what the government is intent on doing so far as that project is concerned?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether a statement in the House is the best procedure, but I have no objection to making public any agreement that we reach together.
April 7, 1976



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It relates to reports describing security in immigration at Toronto International Airport as shoddy and inadequate, similar to the report that the joint committee made on immigration security and that it should be beefed up. What steps are being taken to examine the allegations that have been made about the Toronto International Airport, and what corrective measures have already been put into place by the minister prior to the pre-Olympic influx?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I read the allegations in the article, and in regard to the reference to immigration, partly because it covered many facets, I think I would have to say that some of the information was apparently based on a report of some former staff or people who were understandably a bit disgruntled because they had no future there. Most of the information is really quite inaccurate.
One cannot claim any perfect screen because of the number of visitors that cross our border, and the hon. member is fully aware of that; but I am satisfied that we do have a good system there. The situation has been thoroughly checked out by my department, and while it cannot possibly be failsafe, under the circumstances I am satisfied it is reasonably good. We are constantly looking at ways of improving it.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question, eminating from the same report, to the Solicitor General. Is he satisfied that RCMP personnel at the Toronto and other international airports, who have had only very limited training, are sufficiently trained and sufficiently numerous to handle the increasing numbers of passengers we can expect during the Olympic? Is security satisfactory to his way of thinking?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that they are properly trained but I would have to look into the question of whether we have sufficient numbers. I have not been briefed on that recently but I will inquire. You are talking about Toronto?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: All international airports.


William Warren Allmand: All international airports; I will check on that.
Privilege-Mr. Yewchuk



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A few days ago the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) raised a question of privilege in respect of which several members made contributions. It has been indicated that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) would like to reply.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on April 1 in this House, as reported at page 12358 of Hansard, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) demanded that I apologize for what he described as an attempt:
-to impute motives to certain Conservative members of parliament by implying that they had a particular pecuniary self-interest to protect, thereby attempting to undermine their credibility as members of parliament and prejudice their right to speak freely in accordance with their conscience before the standing committee.
Those were the words and interpretation of the hon. member for Athabasca, Mr. Speaker. They were not my words.
He demanded an apology in respect of two matters that do not relate to anything I said or did. His first was based on his own misinterpretation of what I said, and the second in respect of a CTV program in which I was neither involved nor did I inspire, by Eric Mailing, a reporter I did not know until just yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I met him because the hon. member raised this point. I regret that I missed the exchange which occurred here last Thursday, Mr. Speaker. But even more, I regret that the important business of the nation was once more interrupted by the opposition for what, if all the facts had been told, is a picayune matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Nobody believes you.


Simma Holt: Why are you making so much noise? Are you scared?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I regret that the debate here was blown out of all proportion by an incomplete and, what I consider to be, a misleading report surrounding comments with which I introduced my questioning of the Canadian Medical Association in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, on March 25.
Incidentally the statute of limitations must enter this as it has taken the hon. member a long time to find out he was hurt. However, I feel an answer is expected of me and I might say, Mr. Speaker, that if my ego were delicate, and if I put my ego above the affairs and problems of Canada, I would stand here and demand three apologies, one for the suggestion by the hon. members who sat opposite me at the committee table that because we had no doctors on the
12584

April 7, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Yewchuk
government side of the table we were less competent to serve our constituents. It was that remark that caused me to reply in the way the hon. member complained of here. He started it!


An hon. Member:: So there!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I could ask for an apology for the attack on me while I was absent from this House, implying I was-


An hon. Member:: No one is going to attack you, Simma.


Simma Holt: You are afraid and you are cowards, too. You accused me of being a coward, implying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Simma Holt: The hon. member implied-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Learn how to behave.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The purpose of the intervention by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is to verify what may have been left in doubt about some of the aspects of the question of privilege, as I understand it. I have some doubt as to whether there is a question of privilege up to now, but I am getting a bit worried that though there may not be one now, we may be getting into one soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I notice in the transcript that they gave everybody on their own side a chance to speak against me, but they cannot face my words and my reply now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: My second ground for an apology would be that this passage implied I was afraid to be here to face the hon. member. An hon. member is quoted as having said:
She knew it was coming up and that is why she is not here.
My goodness, I fear no man!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: But the reverse isn't true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I fear no man, certainly none of those on the opposite side, however much I might admire a few-but very few.
My third ground for apology could be that I resent very much your being told, Mr. Speaker, or any other member, that I implied conflict of interest when a member's professional background is used to aid him or her in the huge,

onerous, and very responsible job we have been assigned in this House.
Certainly I do not demand an apology for any one of those. And I do not expect that you could rule that an apology from me is warranted in view of what actually was said and the remark from hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party that inspired my second remark of which the hon. member complained, that the government members of the committee were not doctors and therefore were not qualified to participate in the committee. The hon. member who complained so bitterly to you, or one who sat beside him, did not bother to tell you that it was this interjection that inspired a retort that obviously he did not expect and did not like, and which caused him to stand here and demand that the entire House stop its business so he and the doctors on the Progressive Conservative side of the House could receive an apology.


An hon. Member:: At $219 a minute.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: You know the quotation, Mr. Speaker, so I will not repeat it, but he forgot to tell you that their interjection was: "Where are your doctors on the government side of the House?" They said: "Where are your doctors", to which I responded, and I think quite properly, that it would be better that people who receive service and pay for service start asking a few questions, and that we on the government side in committee were well qualified to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: It was also inaccurate to claim, as was reported in Hansard, that I had the last word. While I frequently do get the last word, and I rather like it, I did not in this case.
Referring to the statement that I suggested a conflict of interest when a member uses his or her expertise to advantage here, that is very wrong and damaging to all of us. On the contrary, I feel it is most important that this House be represented by all professions, industrial, commercial, and working segments of society to achieve a true House of the common people, and that the expertise of each person from a cross-section of the entire Canadian constituency be well used in the House. In this way the people can be best represented.
The special knowledge and value of each person in this House are of inestimable value to Canada. I never suggested there was conflict of interest in the use of the expertise each of us-


An hon. Member:: Give her two cents and let her finish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: You are being chicken, you know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, they are being chicken. I never suggested there was conflict of interest in the use of the expertise each of us has gained in our businesses or professional life. It was the hon. member for Athabasca's own
April 7, 1976

projection and conception; it was never mine. In fact the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), one of the doctors on the opposite side of the committee, was praised very highly by me for his great contribution, based on his medical experience and his years of experience here. He understood the spirit of Bill C-68, which others apparently did not. They, the others on the opposite side, supported the CMA brief very strongly when the CMA officials cried "poor", and pretended to be the martyr of government cutback,-the slapped child of a father's frustration-not deserving the slap, but being nearest when dad's anger explodes at the dinner table.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I pointed out-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On the previous occasion I interrupted the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) in the midst of an expose of all the virtues which ought to be possessed by those who want to serve the public in this House. All of it is a very valuable exposition of the attributes which each of us may offer to the constituents at large here, but again I say that while that reasoning is very valid and very important in fact the question at issue is a narrow question of privilege. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) has been most helpful in intervening to explain the nature of her remarks, but I would want, as I did in respect of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, to call her to attention simply to get back to the basic point of procedure or privilege which is involved, and perhaps conclude her remarks.


Simma Holt: I simply want to say, Mr. Speaker, that at no time during this hearing-and I think this is a matter for your consideration and ruling on this point of privilege and request for an apology-did the member rise on privilege at committee and ask the chairman of the committee for an apology. It was just cross-talk over the table. It took the hon. member a whole week to find out his tender feelings were hurt and come before you, Mr. Speaker, to ask for an apology. I think it is improper and, in the language of the school ground-which I believe those opposite best understand since they often behave as though they are in the school ground-I would suggest that a member who is thin skinned should not use spitballs, because he could get them right back.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) on the same question of privilege.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like simply to object to the hon. member's suggestion that the job of a government backbencher is huge and complex.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope hon. members will understand that I wish to give this matter some further consideration. There are a number of very interesting and somewhat conflicting precedents, but I think one thing comes through again, which is the obvious difficulty of
Committees of the House
attempting to rule from here in any way on the proceedings that have taken place in the standing committees.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is one which will not require a ruling from Your Honour. Since the first Monday following the Christmas recess a number of questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) have been dealt with in this House in respect of the inadequacy of search and rescue procedures in Canada. Each round of questioning would always follow some tragedy at sea, either on the west coast or on the east coast. This has become a serious topic of this session.
Today the Minister of Transport issued a very important statement outside the House. The statement was delivered to my office at 11 a.m. today. However, the minister did not show the House the common decency of coming to the House, standing in his place, and being accountable to this House for what he said outside the House. That, I submit, is contempt, and is a complete contradiction of our parliamentary system of responsible government.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Robinson.

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report, in both official languages, of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr. Loiselle (Saint-Henri).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse on a point of order.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, it is a very short point of order. At the beginning of these proceedings, the House adopted a motion concerning the Order of Canada and some Canadians will receive this order tonight. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that among the personalities who will receive this order will be the Hon. W. A. C. Bennett, who was premier of British Columbia for 20 years. It is therefore a well deserved honour for this great Canadian and I wanted to bring this to the attention of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) on a point of order.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add the wishes of my party to those expressed by the hon. member for the Social Credit Party in respect of the honour being bestowed on our former premier of British Columbia this evening.
2 I 804-35%

April 7, 1976
Order Paper Questions LOBBY REGISTRATION ACT


MEASURE TO REGULATE LOBBYISTS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-432, entituled "An Act to register lobbyists".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the registration of lobbyists, and a declaration by them stating in whose interest they are working. It imposes a fine and disqualification from lobbying for those convicted of evading these provisions.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,772 and 4,616.


Mrs. Appolloni: 1.	How many people designated as handicapped are employed in the Public Service?
2.	In which departments are they employed and how many are there in each?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. It is not possible to determine the exact number of persons designated as handicapped who are employed in the federal Public Service. Identification of handicaps is voluntary and therefore no records are maintained. However, we can say that in February 1975, 420 handicapped people who have so identified themselves were employed as civil servants in the National Capital Region. In September 1975, Hon. Robert Andras, Minister of Manpower and Immigration announced a joint study with the Public Service Commission to promote the hiring of handicapped in the federal Public Service. In four regions, Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and the National Capital, demonstration projects have been established. The procedure is: handicapped persons searching for employment register at the Canada Manpower Centre or the Public Service Commission; four departments in each region are participating in this study by listing jobs with the regional counsellors assigned to the study; each time a vacancy has to be filled in one of the four employer departments, the registration files are inspected in order to refer as many handicapped as possible. The candidates must be ready for employment. Thus his or her experiences will help to identify artificial barriers to employment at the end of the study. This participation is requested from the individual but no investigation of the handicap is

involved and any discussions are voluntary and entirely confidential. Such discussions will aid the counsellor in finding a job which suits the candidate and will avoid the frustration which would arise if the candidate was referred to an unsuitable job.
2. The following Departments have given the number of employees designates as handicapped in accordance with the terms of the Public Service Commission Staffing Manual-Chapter VI. They have also included those employees who have parking privileges because of disabilities. Other Departments, not listed, have no information available since it is not contained in their departmental personnel records (see Part 1). Communications, 4; Consumer and Corporate Affairs, 33; Energy, Mines and Resources, 52; National Energy Board, 2; Environment, 10; External Affairs, 17; Canadian International Development Agency, 7; Industry, Trade and Commerce, 3; Justice, 1; Labour Canada, 48; Manpower and Immigration, 38; Revenue Canada, 507; Post Office, Headquarters, Ottawa, 4; Public Works, 97; Public Archives, 1; National Library, 1; National Film Board, 1; Public Service Commission, 8; Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 11; Canadian Penitentiary Service, 11; Transport Canada, 8; Veterans Affairs, 18.


Mr. Brisco: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,602, has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made any further disbursements of funds to the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada on behalf of the Heritage Stoney Wilderness Centre since June 4, 1974?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No payments have been made directly to the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada since June 1974.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 3,261 and 4,927 could be made orders for returns these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	What was the effective date of Treasury Board Circular No. 1973-88?
2.	Since that date, in how many competitions have the provisions of paragraph 32 of the Circular been applied?
3.	How many of the competitions in which paragraph 32 was applied were (a) within the National Capital Region, (b) within the Province of Quebec, (c) in the rest of Canada, (d) for positions carrying an annual salary of (i) $10,000 or less, (ii) between $10,000 and $20,000, (iii) in excess of $20,000?
4.	With whom does the power of decision rest in applying the provisions of paragraph 32 to a staff competition?
April 7, 1976

5.	What, if any, provisions exist for (a) internal review of any such decisions, (b) appeal against any such decision by employees?
Return tabled.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since January 1970, how many new immigrants were (a) hired as professionals, (b) hired as non-professionals, (c) given non-specialized jobs, (d) unemployed in (i) rural, (ii) semi-rural areas and what was their ethnic origin?
2.	What percentage of immigrants decided to settle in rural and semi-rural areas in (a) Canada, (b) each province?
Return tabled.


Mr. Blais:: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 68?
[Text]	*


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 68-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, letters and telegrams relating to Canada's $11 million claim against the Government of France as a result of the opting out by France of the NATO military alliance and the eviction of participating units in 1966.
Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the information requested is confidential. Its publication would be prejudicial to the conduct of the international relations of Canada and to the current negotiations. I therefore regret to be obliged to ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Jack Marshall: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Measures Against Crime



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude my comments of last Wednesday in connection with the gun control aspects of this particular bill by reiterating the main features as I see them, and as they have been enunciated in the bill.
First, the bill basically will involve the addition of a licensing system for all persons who now possess or will possess firearms in the future.
Second, there will be a stronger definition of prohibited and restricted weapons.
Third, there will be strengthened penalties for related activities such as importing, possessing, and handling.
Fourth, there will be a strengthening of the permit provisions for businesses which deal in weapons.
Fifth, there will be higher maximum sentences where offensive weapons are involved.
Sixth, the provisions relating to police seizure will be extended in order to enable our security forces to seize without warrant where it is in the interest of safety.
Seventh, there are broad avenues of appeal to any person who feels discriminated against in the course of carrying out this legislation.
Eighth, the measures will be phased in over a three year period, particularly referring to the licensing provisions.
I would like to move on next to that aspect of Bill C-83 which deals with crime detection and electronic surveillance, otherwise referred to as the wiretapping provisions. At present there is a restricted list of offences to which this particular provision can be applied, but the courts will now be empowered under Bill C-83 to grant authorization to interrupt communications for all indictable offences. The problem at the present time is that the list is really too restrictive to permit appropriate surveillance at times when the public interest would be better served by permitting the courts to grant permits in such cases.
I think there is perhaps a legitimate concern being expressed in connection with the apparent elimination of some safeguards of the rights of individuals who come under this bill in its present form, and this aspect, I suggest, is bound to receive considerable discussion in committee. I am referring to the provision which states that evidence derived directly or indirectly will be admissible evidence when the lead has come from an illegal wiretap. The illegal wiretap itself will still be inadmissible under Bill C-83. However, at present anything that is

April 7, 1976
Measures Against Crime
derived directly or indirectly from illegal wiretaps is also inadmissible.
I think there is also some concern over the aspect of the requirement to notify persons under surveillance. I find the provisions whereby this would be repealed to be somewhat difficult to accept, and I am hopeful that there will be a great deal of discussion of this matter when the bill goes to committee.
The next aspect of the bill that I would like to talk about is that relating to dangerous offenders. At present there are two existing categories of offenders known as habitual criminals and dangerous sexual offenders. These two categories will be replaced by one category known as dangerous offenders. The classification of dangerous offenders will have to be made before sentence is passed, whereas at present I understand that these other two categories can actually be named any time after three months following sentence. There are also broad avenues of appeal still open to anybody who is labelled in this way.
One concern with this dangerous offender clause, and another item that I hope will receive considerable discussion in committee, is the anomaly that may be introduced under the indeterminate sentences rather than using a sentence of a fixed number of years, and this anomaly arises in that under the indeterminate sentence provision parole review will be carried out after three years, and each two years after that. One could end up with an indeterminate sentence as a dangerous offender and be subject to earlier parole provisions than in the case of a fixed sentence of say, 15 years, whereas at present it is my understanding that parole can only be considered after five years. I believe that a Senate committee has already discussed minimum sentences of ten years for dangerous offenders, and I hope that might be looked at again a little more carefully during the committee stage.
The next aspect of the bill that I would like to discuss relates to special crime inquiries. This is mainly intended to deal with the growth in organized crime that we are recognizing in Canadian society. The normal police investigation powers are often not sufficient in this area. A recent example has been Quebec's special inquiry into organized crime which has been shown to be an effective alternative method of investigation. When Bill C-83 was introduced, the legal status of Quebec's crime probe was being challenged. The fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that crime probes come within provincial jurisdiction may necessitate some review of these sanctions in Bill C-83. These questions will have to be considered carefully in committee. I think that the important point is that there is an endeavour on the part of the government through Bill C-83 to move into the area of organized crime and to give it special attention.
A concern has been expressed to me which I will mention because I think it is perhaps somewhat farfetched, nevertheless it could lead to some misunderstanding. It relates to the attempt within the bill to define organized crime. It has been suggested that at present it is defined, I believe, as planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert. There is some suggestion that this could lead to the ridiculous situation where a group of teenagers could be involved in a minor crime, such as robbing hub caps or other incidental items, and this would be deemed to

be organized crime. Obviously this is not the intention, but I hope that in committee there might be some endeavour to find a better definition of organized crime, or perhaps leave the term as it is defined at present.
The next point that I would like to speak about in connection with the bill relates to the parole provisions. Perhaps the most important aspect here is the matter of earned remissions. There will be no more statutory remissions, meaning in effect no more automatic decreases in the period of a sentence. Early release will have to be earned by an inmate under the provisions of Bill C-83.
I think that attention should be drawn to the reorganization and make up of the parole board, which will be increased to 26 full time people from the present nine full time members and ten ad hoc members.
The other aspect which I think is of interest to people in various communities is the determination to include regional parole groups and the fact that indeed the regional people will be involved, in the case of a life sentence, on the actual parole board, with full voting rights. In other words, the community will always be represented in these major cases, and I think this is most important.
Reasons will also have to be given for the decisions of the parole board, and it will be made somewhat easier for inmates to appear at hearings. If parole is broken under the provisions of Bill C-83, there will no longer be a need to go before a magistrate in order to get the inmate back into prison, and the maximum penalties for escape or attempted escape will be increased from five years to ten years.
In finalizing my comments on the bill I should like to say that it is important to note that there are a number of administrative provisions which are also intended to be implemented which will assist in making our penal system more effective. I will enumerate them in summary form. First, there will be a clearing house of information established on police programs which should help in prevention, identification, and related matters. Second, there will be developed better training programs in community relations and preventive policing. Third, there will be a development and dissemination of model programs. Fourth, crime prevention through environmental designs, studies, etc. Will be undertaken, and sixth and last, there will be victimization surveys, which are studies to determine the incidence of crime, the effect on victims, etc.
All in all, these administrative changes and the entire legislation under Bill C-83 are really aimed at giving greater protection to society while maintaining a fair criminal justice system.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-83, the government's so-called peace and security legislation. I do so because of the intense concern created by this bill throughout my constituency and throughout Canada. On June 10 of this year I will celebrate 19 years of service in the Canadian House of Commons, and during this period of time, to the best of my recollection, I cannot recall any previous bill which generated so much correspondence and almost violent reaction from the people I am elected to serve.
April 7, 1976

We on this side of the House have carefully examined this legislation, and we along with our constituents, have come to the conclusion that it is bad legislation. It is legislation which has been hastily drawn up, improperly drafted, and thrown into the legislative hopper as a divisionary tactic in order to take people's minds off the real and threatening problems of the day, namely, the state of the economy brought about by the mismanagement of the government. It is for this reason that our justice critic, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), who made an outstanding speech on this bill, moved the following motion:
Bill C-83 ... be not now read a second time but that the subject-matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the purpose of considering a more proper legislative division thereof.
This motion was not moved without considerable thought being given to its substance by the hon. member and by all members of this party. I support the motion, and in view of the importance of the subject matter, I urge the cabinet-and in fact I urge the supporters of the government-to give serious consideration to this proposal.
Quite frankly, I did not think it would be necessary for me to speak on this bill. I say this because of the hundreds of letters I received from my constituents opposing the measure, letters which were endorsed and forwarded to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). Upon checking with my colleagues I found that they too have received hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of letters, and in checking with friends across the way who are supporters of the government I found that they too have received hundreds of letters in opposition to this bill.
In light of this strong opposition any normal government would have altered course, changed direction and in fact would have withdrawn the bill in order to amend and improve its wording. But I submit that we are not dealing with a normal government; in fact, we are dealing with a very abnormal one. We are dealing with a government which says one thing and does another. We are dealing with a government which made a mockery of our prices and incomes policy during the 1974 election campaign and which later turned around and introduced a monster to the Canadian working man and businessman.
We are dealing with a government which claims the working man cannot receive any more than 8 per cent of an increase in salary under its Anti-Inflation Board regulations, while it increases its own spending this year by something like 18 per cent. The rules laid down by the Anti-Inflation Board apparently apply to everyone but the government.
We are dealing with a government which condones, for example, aggression in Africa by Cuban communist troops, while we indirectly support the Castro regime by direct grants under CIDA, outright gifts of money, as well as loans over something like 30 years at 3 per cent. Who would not like a deal like that? But it is not available to everyone.
We are dealing with a government which has made a mockery of justice in Canada by finding it acceptable for ministers of the Crown to telephone judges in an effort to arrange suitable decisions and to make sure, as the Minis-
Measures Against Crime
ter of Public Works (Mr. Drury) said in the House, that they understand the facts and that they do their duty.
The crime is not only misconduct, but even more damaging is the fact that the government, on the surface at least, implies that it has done no wrong. In Canada we have a double standard of justice, one for the rich and privileged, and one for all the rest of us. No state can long survive under this kind of hypocrisy.
As I stated earlier, hundreds of letters opposing Bill C-83 have been received in my office. Many letters are different, but through each one runs a similar and familiar thread. The people I represent can well remember-as I do-living under the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, living under the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, as well as under the Right Hon. Lester Pearson. It would be unfair to say to this House that they loved these men, but I submit they did not hate them. I have a feeling they were universally respected by most of my constituents. However, this is something I cannot say about the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). As a result of his four letter words inside and outside this House, his address over the New Year with regard to the need for changing our society, his economic policies and wasteful bureaucracy, and his gun control legislation, I submit that the thread which runs through my mail about the Prime Minister is one of distrust and fear.
They ask point blank: why does this man want to seize my gun collection, and when is he planning to declare that the entire nation is faced with an armed insurrection and that the state must step in with its armed forces to take control? These are only a few of the fears which are expressed to me, but they are, nonetheless, genuine and sincere, and they are questions which I cannot answer. They are not only reflected in the correspondence I receive, but they are also reflected in the headlines of the newspapers of our nation. I have in my hand the Chronicle-Herald of March 25, and the headline reads: "Gun Law Could Lead to Police State Action." The story reads in part as follows:
"Police state" confiscation of all privately owned firearms "could happen here" under the peace and security package of legislation proposed by the federal government, Murray Covert, a director of the Kings County Wildlife Association, said at a meeting of the association.
I will not read into the record all which is stated in this release. It is damning enough of the government. However, there is one paragraph which concerns me greatly. Mr. Covert also said:
"No country in the world that has compulsory gun registration for more than 5 years has not followed with gun confiscation."
Let us look carefully at Bill C-83. It contains 73 pages, 39 of which deal with one matter, namely, gun control. There are five distinct changes in the law in this bill, but only one brings in a special new law on gun control. In other words, 39 pages out of 73 deal with the new law on gun control, which may well explain the fear of my constituents over the attitude of the Prime Minister and the government.
I said earlier that basically this is bad legislation because the minister, when introducing 29 pages of new law, deliberately mixed it up with other amendments. In Nova Scotia we would say to him that he is deliberately and intentionally fogging the issue. In my opinion we should have a

April 7, 1976
Measures Against Crime
separate debate on gun control and another entirely different debate on the patchwork of amendments to the Criminal Code. This would give an opportunity to every hon. member of this House to express his views according to the dictates of his heart and his conscience.
Even the title is misleading when it states that this is an act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violence and other crimes. The minister knows, and surely supporters of the government must know and realize that this is fiction, not really fact.
The record of the government when it comes to controlling crime is as faulty as its record in the economic field. When the Liberal government came into power in 1962 there were something like 217 reported murders. In 1963 it was up to 315. By 1971 the number of murders increased to 426. In 1972 there were 479 murders, and in 1974 there were something like 545 reported murders. In spite of this damaging and, I submit, frightening record, the newspapers of this country carry the propaganda put out by the government that violent crime is on the decrease. What hypocrisy and what nonsense!
Kidnapping, violence, rape, assault, murder and hijacking have occurred day after day until the government had to take some action, even at the expense of its credibility. This bill was the visible result, but I say to the minister that it will do nothing to help solve the causes of crime any more than the Anti-Inflation Board is helping to solve the problems of inflation.
Violent crimes are creating a climate of fear in our growing cities. Faced with economic problems, an expensive taxation policy and spending programs which have eroded the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar, many people, young and old, are looking with fear to the future. In some cases, not knowing where to turn and feeling like a dog chasing its tail, they turn to the great deceiver, alcohol or, worse, to the excessive use of drugs. These actions may turn them on, to use a current phrase, but it also turns them off such things as the production line, the full enjoyment of life, and the sanity line. It is while in a state of temporary instability and insanity that crimes of passion and violence are committed, and because the government created the economic pressures leading up to this state, it must share a heavy responsibility for our present high crime rate. I realize there is a need for proper laws and for proper law enforcement, but crime breeds in our overcrowded cities, in our urban slums and wherever there are injustice and excessive poverty.
The government has made a mockery of its own claims to establish a just society. It has built up a burden of debt with its mishandling of the Canadian economy which has made it difficult, if not impossible, for young and old alike to enjoy a reasonable, normal, happy way of life.
In order to make a major assault on crime, it is necessary to attack the despair and the denial of human opportunity on which crime breeds. We must deal with the underlying causes of crime-poverty, drug abuse, alcoholism, lack of opportunities, unemployment, to name a few of the factors which lead to a higher crime rate.
We live in a land of bountiful resources; we have more wheat than we can eat and more fish than we can catch. In

order to tap those resources and provide new opportunities for our people we must rearrange present government programs and spending priorities. We must give hope where now there is only despair. We must make sure that the law is respected, and this cannot be done by creating injustice for the poor while protecting the rich and privileged.
The law will be obeyed only when it is respected, but I fear that Bill C-83 as it is presently written will not be acceptable to the majority of Canadians. I say this because of the many anomalies contained in it. For example, the government has never taken the trouble in all its studies on gun control to determine the cost of administering this legislation, nor do we know the number of bureaucrats required to license all the guns in Canada or to issue permits for restricted weapons as well as the certificates required to obtain ammunition.
All this will be costly and will require yet another army of civil servants. Yet this is the government which claims it is exercising restraint on the one hand, while it establishes an open ended, high cost program on the other. We should at least be given an estimate now of the number of people the program will require, as well as its cost to the Canadian taxpayer, before we are asked to vote on this legislation. I say this as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee: the blind approval of too many pigs in a poke has led to the present financial chaos in Canada and somewhere there must be an accounting, a levelling off, a common sense approach to government or we face economic collapse.
As I said earlier, this is bad legislation. There are so many provisions in Bill C-83 which are improper or poorly drafted that it is impossible to cite all of them in one speech. For example, look at proposed Section 87(2) on page 5 and Section 106.2(5) on page 24. These provisions seem to require that every owner of a restricted weapon must have his registration altered every time he moves his home or place of business, otherwise he commits an offence and is subject to a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment. Surely this is an overly severe threat to a man who may simply forget to have his registration altered when he moves.
Clause 88(1), clause 106.1 and clause 45 of the bill when taken together provide for the licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns, establishing penalties if such persons do not obtain such a licence. This is a feature of the bill to which I must raise strong objections. It will require some two million Canadian citizens who own rifles or shotguns to apply for a licence to continue that ownership and in so doing to fill out an application form-not yet described- and to get two guarantors of as yet unstated status. It will also require that they subject themselves to the discretion of a local firearms registrar, who in turn will be subject to guidelines to be laid down by order in council at some future date. For all this the gun owner must pay a fee in an amount not yet stated.
I believe the benefits of this great bureaucratic operation will be so insignificant that they will not begin to justify the effort. Active criminals will certainly not apply for a licence and, anticipating the requirements of the regulations yet to be published, I ask: where will the line be drawn in approving or rejecting an application in the face
April 7, 1976

of a record of alcoholism, criminality, or mental illness? Consider all the variations in degree that will have to be taken into account. Because of its complexities alone the operation will tend to become either autocratic or else unfair or meaningless.
As for the proposition that killings with long guns would be reduced by this licensing system, it should be remembered that the majority of such killings are committed by persons who would have no trouble getting a licence because before the event they were considered normal citizens. Others likely to be involved in such killings and who are an identifiable threat could be taken care of by different provisions of the criminal law. As for the man who is a threat because he is partially insane or is intermittently unstable and violent, action could be taken to seize all his firearms under section 105, which wisely would be strengthened by this new bill.
I also believe that the qualifications of hunters and marksmen should be left to the provinces where they would be linked to the administration of the game laws and officially recognized gun clubs. Some provinces already have such a program in operation. Others are moving in that direction. I submit this system would not require any great new bureaucratic machine. Qualification would be based on competence and on knowledge of all gun laws and, with its adoption, a card certifying membership in an approved marksmen's club, a hunters' safety course pass certificate, or a hunting licence could be established as authorization for the sale and purchase of a firearm or ammunition.
I belong to a gun club in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, and I am certain the members of our club would be happy to undertake this additional responsibility. Some of the provinces already have such a program in operation and others are moving in that direction. Such a system would not necessitate any big, new bureaucratic machine. The qualification would be based on competence, and at the end of the instruction period a certificate could be issued which, on presentation, would authorize the purchase of firearms or ammunition. This would be a logical course to pursue as well as an economical one, something which seems beyond the comprehension of the government.
Clause 99(2) brings into question the delicate matter of a gun owner's responsibility for safe handling and storage. What is meant by the words "careless storage", and how will the courts interpret this proposed section? It seems to me that gun owners may well be exposed to harsh penalties under this unless it is applied with great care.
Clause 100 prescribes the rules governing the manufacturing, repairing, reporting of losses, advertising, etc. of firearms and restricted weapons by dealers and gunsmiths. I submit that it is impossible to judge the relevance or value of the different features of this clause without having the regulations and the directions, to be issued by the commissioner, which apply thereto. The maximum penalties faced by violators is listed at five years, which seems too severe when considering the persons likely to be involved.
While listing my concerns over this bill I cannot help but wonder why some thought was not given to authorizing a court to impose an order of prohibition on any person charged with or convicted of any violent crime while such
Measures Against Crime
a person is out on bail or under suspended sentence. Such an amendment would have been directed at dangerous or habitual criminals who often return to violent crime immediately after they are placed on bail or suspended sentence.
In conclusion I cannot help questioning the manner in which the government drafted, submitted, and now proposes to ram this legislation through parliament. I say this as a main feature of the bill would impose a licensing requirement on some two million Canadians without first providing for meaningful consultation with interested groups. By closing off debate on the bill the government has in effect silenced the voices of many democratically elected representatives of the people in such a way that many law-abiding Canadians will be given no real opportunity for understanding this legislation, or for responding. In the final analysis, few resent the necessity of obtaining a licence to own and carry firearms, just as most do not resent the necessity of buying a licence to drive a car. Basically this is another form of tax on your way of life, and another restriction of freedom.
We already have good gun laws on the books. The present laws, which I submit are adequate for Canada, should be implemented. Further, the bill misleads in that it claims to provide "better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent. . . crime." It would be pleasant if this were true. Unfortunately the bank robber and killer will still have access to guns, legally or illegally, and the hoped for protection to be provided by this bill will be merely an illusion.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-83 is the government's immediate response to the people's current concern over increased crime and violence. It is many things, but it is not everything, and it is important that we all know that. It is a sincere and courageous attempt by our federal government to tighten up the law and order system and to help Canadian society to cope better with crime and violence. It involves legislation on gun controls, bail, parole, sentencing, release from prison, wiretapping, the management of dangerous offenders and, most important of all, the improved prevention of crime. It is essential in its own right, aside from any other considerations, but it is not a sop to ease the way for abolition of capital punishment.
Bill C-83 does not include capital punishment, because that is the subject of another related bill, Bill C-84, to be debated in the near future. There will be a separate debate and vote on capital punishment, to satisfy Canadian concern that it has been handled fairly, clearly, thoroughly, and responsibly. It is an unusual and highly controversial aspect of our justice system, whichever way it is resolved. Both bills C-84 and C-83 must be resolved on their own merits. I look forward personally to participating in debate on these bills.
Bill C-83 also does not involve certain other areas of crime or current concern to Canadians. There are other federal programs to deal with organized crime, drug offences, and criminal use of firearms. Some crimes like traffic violations and gambling are beyond federal jurisdiction and are the direct responsibility of provincial and
12592
April 7, 1976

Measures Against Crime
other levels of government. Bill C-83 is a large and complex package of amendments and will require a major re-educational process, not only for the public but for legislators and officials themselves. We will not be served well by superficial, slipshod, biased or otherwise irresponsible reporting on the subject. There are many components therefore to be covered in depth, and not enough time in one speech to do so. Thus I, like many others in the House, will choose to concentrate on one of the areas of greatest interest and importance, gun controls.
The bail system has already been tightened up in recent months and will be tightened further, while attempting to safeguard the rights of the innocent citizen, especially the poor and submissive. Parole procedures will be tightened, to protect the public and to make sure that people are not free to cause further problems when they should still be confined. Although there is an 80 per cent success rate on parole, and an even greater 99 per cent success rate on temporary passes, sensational cases are reported in the media, and the public is concerned. The Parole Board and correctional staffs will be strengthened and, under the new act, those convicted will have to earn time off.
Wiretapping, or electronic surveillance, is regarded as necessary by our police forces to protect us from the evils of organized crime and will be strengthened; but along with these concessions the public must at the same time be safeguarded from any possibility of becoming the victims of these science fiction techniques.
The bill will seek to make it more difficult for organized crime to "launder" money acquired through illegal activities. It will protect the public from habitual, violent, sexual or otherwise dangerous offenders, even those who would inflict severe psychological danger rather than just physical harm on others, while protecting the rights of the accused so that the law cannot be turned against the innocent. It will change the procedure in rape trials, to offer more protection to the victim. However important detection and correction may be, crime prevention is still paramount in the realities of our present society, even though the ideal is a crime-free world. Prevention policy will include better information exchanges, crisis training, and new police programs.
The government also proposes more research on the social environment of communities and organizations which lead to crime and, last but not least, more consideration for the victims of crime. This is a very comprehensive package of justice reforms, if not a total reform of criminal law.
Let me say a word on gun controls. Running through all of these government efforts to improve crime control is the obvious theme of balancing effectiveness with protection of the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. Gun control legislation represents a particularly interesting challenge. Probably no other area of public concern these days enjoys such a strong measure of public support. Yet there is a small but very active and vocal minority who claim to use firearms for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting, and complain that new gun controls would constitute unfair and unreasonable restrictions on their activities and individual rights. It has not been lost on the Canadian people that such sentiments are also strongly prevalent on the other side of the border,
[Mr. Philbrook.)
where the right to have and use guns is apparently firmly imbedded in the American constitution.
National and other public polls in Canada have consistently indicated that over 80 per cent of the respondents favoured tighter gun controls. My own personal poll of Halton riding returned a figure of 84 per cent; although, as with the remainder of the questionnaire, only 10 per cent of the constituents bothered to answer.
The Ottawa Citizen in its lead editorial on March 30, 1976, stated that gun controls belong in the new peace and security package. The Globe and Mail of Toronto, not always a supporter of federal government policy, made several pointed comments in its March 1, 1976, lead editorial, "Reducing the Gun Menace", which I shall now read. I quote:
Guns are for killing. Let's get that straight and eliminate any talk about people being entitled to use a gun unless shown to be untrustworthy. That puts the emphasis in the wrong place. A person who wants to use a gun-just like a person who wants to drive a car-ought to establish first that he is trustworthy. He ought to have a licence.
That's the approach adopted by federal Justice Minister Ron Basford in his new gun legislation and he is to be applauded for it.
Mr. Basford is faced with two problems: the use of guns by criminals and the use of guns by non-criminals who, through carelessness in use or storage, contribute to the injury of others.
He has dealt with the criminal use of guns basically by increasing penalties. Licensing plays no part in this area. In all but two cases, he would at least double the maximum sentences that could be imposed. Summary conviction (petty) offences for which the penalty usually is set at a maximum of six months in jail, a $500 fine or both, would carry an alternative penalty under indictable procedures (used for more serious charges) of up to two years in jail. Where the maximum sentence currently is two years in jail, Mr. Basford proposes five. And where it is five years, he proposes ten.
For the use of an offensive weapon-a gun, a knife, karate sticks-in the course of a crime, Mr. Basford would have a special penalty: a minimum sentence to be served in jail ranging from one to 14 years and which would have to be served consecutively to any other sentence.
In stiffening penalties directed at criminals, Mr. Basford will have wide and justified support.
However, his licensing provisions will stir controversy among sportsmen and gun enthusiasts who seem to take it as a personal affront that they will be asked to pass a test and obtain a licence for the use of long guns. If they were to pause for a moment and realize that, as with car licences, the procedure is designed to offer minimum protection against the few who are careless, they would realize how slight their support is likely to be.
Everyone using a firearm of any sort-a pistol, a rifle, a shotgun- would have to be licensed. Everyone owning a restricted weapon- basically guns such as handguns that can be concealed-would have to obtain an ownership registration. And everyone who wanted to carry a handgun with him would need a special permit.
Here is an area for real concern. Mr. Basford has not narrowed enough the reasons for which a handgun can be owned and carried about. He leaves intact the provisions that permit owning handguns as part of a lawful profession-meaning that security guards could still walk through our streets like cowboys-and he would leave a broad discretion in the Criminal Code as to who could own a handgun "to protect life" (although, to his credit, he would remove the right to own a handgun "to protect property").
There would be a broad discretion to refuse registration for a handgun or permission to carry it around, and there would be power to pass regulations governing registration and permits.
Nevertheless, it should be clearly written into the law that ownership and carrying of handguns will not be permitted unless it is clearly established that the police are unable to provide necessary protection. That goes for security guards and that goes for private indidivuals. It
April 7, 1976

should just about eliminate the need for private ownership of handguns for protection.
That just about says it all, and the Globe and Mail to its credit leaves no doubt where it stands, just about where most of us Canadians stand, for increased public safety from firearms.
In February, 1976, the National Firearms Safety Association came out publicly, urging Canadians to support what it calls the government's positive and responsible actions in moves toward gun control. It said that it was pleased with the firearms provisions of the federal peace and security bill, that Canadians would have to buy licences after proving they were fit to have guns and ammunition, that anyone owning or selling rifles and shotguns could be held responsible if carelessness led to their use in crime. It and the Canadian. Wildlife Federation have taken a firm stand in favour of a competency test to ensure a person knows how to use a firearm.
The Ontario Attorney General said in an interview that the federal legislation follows in principle what the province was prepared to introduce in the coming session. He added that gun control would upset groups such as hunters, but that we cannot let any special group dictate against the wishes of the public in general.
Mr. Jack Pickett, past-president of the Liberal party in Alberta, recently wrote to assure his support for the peace and security package including the gun control, bail, and abolition of capital punishment provisions, in spite of the fact that he had previously and publicly supported capital punishment. He had in fact presented a motion to that effect at the 1975 Liberal convention. I believe that the government is coming to grips with crime in our society, he stated in a wire to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), and is tightening up the bail laws. As for gun controls, he continued, surely the ownership of firearms must carry certain responsibilities. He further noted that a federal Conservative MP recently found an 81.5 per cent response in favour of tighter gun controls, and only 16.4 per cent against, in a poll he had taken.
Yet a Globe and Mail reporter, Jonathan Manthrope, in late March, 1976, was able to report gun controls a hotter issue than hanging, with about 360 letters per week arriving, most of them against the legislation, compared to only 200 a week on capital punishment, and few on other aspects of the bill such as parole and sentencing.
Paradoxically, he said, organizations characterized as the gun lobby and against all controls have said the bill is not tough enough in many areas, that it will do nothing to stop the negligent or criminal use of firearms. They are apparently perturbed that many of the gun control provisions are ill-defined, that the bill will give too much arbitrary power to local firearm registrars, and that there will not be a standard system across the country. Special concern has been expressed over the provision that makes a gun owner liable to criminal negligence if his firearm is left in an insecure place and taken and misused by someone else. They complain that the bill does not define what is meant by secure, that different judges might hand down different decisions.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is why it is so urgent for parliament to approve this bill in principle by putting an end to second reading and sending it to committee where it
Measures Against Crime
can receive a full public hearing and debate. Surely in its present size it presents enough detail, and further amendments and improvements will be made at the next stage of its passage through parliament.
Also there are a number of misconceptions about the bill. The first is that it requires registration of all firearms-but not so, only the person will require to be licensed by the local firearms registrar. The second is that the decision of the registrar will be final-not so, there will be an appeal system in the courts.
The government has clearly opted, says Orland French of the Ottawa Citizen, for controls on people, not guns, to stop the spread of firearms. It has frankly rejected gun registration in favour of stronger controls on licensing of gun users, owners, dealers, and manufacturers, to screen out potential misusers of guns, and restrict the general availability of firearms. At the same time the government is sincerely trying to avoid harrassing sportsmen, and to meet with the approval of hunting groups and rifle clubs. Is that not fair?
Applicants for restricted weapons such as handguns will be required to justify the need for such a weapon before a certificate is granted. However, the bill's provisions place the emphasis squarely on the criminal element where it belongs-higher maximum sentences from a mandatory minimum sentence of one year up to 14 years for the use of a gun while committing an indictable offence, running consecutively to any other sentence.
Every possessor of firearms will need a licence, good for five years, issued only if the licensing officer is satisfied there is nothing in the applicant's background to make him unfit to possess a weapon. Is that too much to ask?
Local registrars and licensing officers will be located in convenient places throughout the country, and their decisions will be subject to appeal in the courts. Is that not democratic? In general I think that the provisions of this bill are fairly reasonable and deserve to go to committee.
It seems there are still some people in this country who complain. Mr. William Jones, president of Firearms and Responsible Ownership, stated that the new gun control legislation is a Madison Avenue con job. It is perhaps appropriate that he chose a cynical American term, considering the prevalent situation in the U.S.A. regarding guns and crime. Such name-calling has been used before by critics toward responsible government programs-our antiinflation program for example-and we all know how successful that plan is already, even at this early stage.
To his credit Mr. Jones has tried to take the middle ground with our government, has tried to keep the extremists of both types out. Together we have done that, but there is a place for flexibility in a program, for avoiding fixed details that can be better developed as we gain experience with a new program.
In many instances the critics have not bothered to make themselves familiar with the bill and are complaining of some problems which do not exist, suggesting things which are already included. On the other hand our serious problems are not just those which have happened but also those which could happen, for example with regard to fully automatic weapons.
21804-36j/2

April 7, 1976
Measures Against Crime
Last year the cries were more shrill, more absolute-no gun controls at all! Fortunately they are fewer this year, more reasonable and responsible, more conciliatory. Discussion is possible with more gun-owners, and when the bill is explained they are prepared to keep working with us on the new measures, or at least not to be so hostile and antagonistic. However, there are still a few extremists around, and goodness knows if they will ever change. One of my constituents announced publicly that there was no relation between guns and crime; that people should have the right to defend themselves, their families and their property with firearms and not have to rely on the police; that our government is simply trying to turn Canada into a communist totalitarian dictatorship with these attempts at law reform; that the bill is an extension of high taxation even though that higher taxation has been used mainly to help needy people; that liberty and freedom are in danger of giving way to slavery; that capital punishment is the magic answer to our problems.
I do not understand this type of raving, and I doubt if most Canadians do, even most gun enthusiasts. These paranoid pronouncements sound like a harkening back to the days of the American wild west, or at least the worst of modern American society. They stand guilty of their own accusations, a lust to exert their own form of power and intimidation over the rest of society, and I personally stand ready as a non-violent, non-weapon wielding citizen to fight them to the end.
In the name of humanity and civilization, Mr. Speaker, let us get this peace and security bill into committee where it belongs, right away, and let the Canadian people as a whole decide how they wish to put in order their own serious public affairs, hopefully with the responsible support of any minority interest involved.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is unfortunate that the government has seen fit drastically to limit discussion of this important measure. I am delighted to hear that the previous speaker, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook), believes that there should be a full examination of the bill in committee, and I hope that the government will relent to a degree and allow this to take place.
My concern with the legislation at the outset has to do with the very title of the bill, which I think is some kind of unsophisticated attempt to mask the issues before us in this legislation and in the bill to follow. I do not know to whom we should give credit for manufacturing this new term "peace and security", or what particular benefit there is to the government, or to anybody else for that matter, in making use of that term. I know that the sort of law and order syndrome, which has been getting an increasing amount of credibility from a number of quarters, seems to be attracted by this kind of terminology, and perhaps it softens or diverts the actual intent of the legislation before us.
When President Nixon was in power he liked to resort to using such terms as "peace and security" and "peace and tranquility". His successor in office, President Ford, has been addicted to the same phrases. If my hon. friends in

the Liberal party have succumbed to the same kind of psychology, then that is most unfortunate. To me this kind of catch phrase is at best meaningless jargon. I assume that by "peace and security" what the government really means is the criminal justice system, or crime and punishment, or an attempt to deal with the continuum that relates to people who commit offences against society and the system we use for dealing with such people. It is a bit of a fad these days to adopt this sort of approach to things that are somewhat unpleasant or difficult to face.
I note that those who deal with the subject of death do not refer any more to a funeral parlour but to a slumber room. Presumably there is something much more attractive about a concept that is fictitious or made up. The dearly beloved has not really died; he or she is only fast asleep! Presumably for the government there is something more attractive about talking about peace and security rather than about crime and punishment and social protection.
I am making this point, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is symptomatic of the basic problem with this legislation. I believe that by publishing all this material and these two legislative proposals the government is engaging in a kind of legislative sleight-of-hand. It is working a kind of illusion, somewhat in the manner of the traditional magician, only the government pretends to be taking serious action to deal with situations that it has already concluded do in fact exist.
Having listened to the words of the minister who opened this debate it seems to me that there is a very large element of pandering, if you like, to a number of myths about crime, its evidence, and its control in our society. I am going to comment on that later in my remarks, but at the outset let me just say that one of the real problems with the legislation before us today is that the very theme itself that the government has adopted in this legislation is open to great question.
In his opening remarks on this bill on March 8 the minister had this to say, presumably with the full endorsement of the government. I am reading from page 11578 of Hansard, the second column:
-I see three paramount responsibilities which must guide me in formulating, recommending and implementing criminal justice policies. First, I must remain ever-conscious of a number of fundamental values recognized in our legal system upon which our society, as a civilized one, rests and must continue to rest. These bear repeating from time to time. They are: the dignity and worth of the human person; the right of an individual to the enjoyment of life, liberty, security and property; the full protection of the law; the rule of law and due process of law; the independence of the judiciary; the avoidance of cruel and unusual punishment; the protection of the rights of an accused or convicted person; the moral values of our society; the peace and security of the community.
It is only that final part of the sentence that is really grappled with in this legislation, and then only obliquely. We would do ourselves very grave harm if we suggested in the context of the legislative proposals that are before us that we will satisfy the framework that the minister himself set out in opening the debate on this bill.
In basic form the minister suggested there were two things that were the intent of this proposal; first was the safety and security of the law abiding; secondly, the legal rights and dignity of those charged with offences. The unfortunate part of it is, having read the legislation and
April 7, 1976

listened to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) presenting the bill, that I do not think he has effectively grappled with either of the two stated intents which he himself said were the sum and substance of the bill.
As I indicated a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, I think one of the basic problems with the legislation is that it is founded upon a false premise. The minister recognizes throughout his speech-and it is certainly implied in the legislation and accompanying press releases-that our criminal justice system is not working satisfactorily. I do not think I am overstating what he said or what other members of his party have said in this debate.
Having said that, in broad terms his solution is more of what he has already indicated is not working. It may sound like a rather vast over-simplification or generalization of the position adopted by the government on this bill, and may I also say adopted in the bill that will follow it having to do with capital punishment; but I think the government in some ways is its own worst enemy in trying to grapple with crime and punishment in our modern society.
I think the government has adopted a kind of Alice in Wonderland approach in this bill. Let me illustrate one aspect that struck me very forcefully as I prepared myself to take part in this debate. I have in front of me a document prepared by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in March, 1975, entitled "The Prevention and Control of Violent Crime in Canada: Some Comments on Violent Crime, Capital Punishment and other Related Issues". On page 2, in the second paragraph, the Solicitor General said this:
Let us look at the facts. Existing data indicates that there has been no disproportionate increase in the number of violent crimes.
So he won't think I am taking it out of context I will go on and read the next sentence:
The proportion of violent offences to all Criminal Code offences has remained relatively constant at around 10 per cent per annum over the period of 1966-73, as the attached Table 1 shows.
The Solicitor General told us very clearly in this first report which was published a year ago that there had been no disproportionate increase in violent crime over almost the previous decade. However, when the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General brought forth their so-called peace and security package we find in the blue booklet that accompanied it, in the introduction, and let me quote two sentences from it:
Rising crime rates, including rates of violent crime, are bringing home to Canadians that changes in the criminal law and in the administration of criminal justice are needed if the best possible protection is to be afforded to the public.
A little further on in the second paragraph, talking about various measures the government is introducing, it states: They are designed to come to grips with the increasing incidence of crime in Canadian society and to meet the need the public feels for a greater measure of protection.
How does the public or any individual square the seemingly contradictory position adopted on the one hand by the Solicitor General last year in the document he released on violent crime and this year by the joint document issued by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice? This is only one small indication of the kind of uncertainty, indeed confusion that exists in respect of the
Measures Against Crime
government as to what in fact it is facing. If it is confused in understanding the problem as profound, what is even more disturbing is its solution, because it seems to me in looking at this legislation with regard to offenders the solution is primarily more, or longer, or simply general indeterminate sentencing.
Surely if anything has been studied to death in this country since the Archambault Report in the last 30's, or the Fauteaux Report in the late 50's, it is sentencing per se, and it has been indicated that sentencing, particularly given the nature of the institutions with which we have to work in this country, is at a dead end.
There is no more sorry record of government administration in dealing with prisoners than the federal penitentiary system that operates in this country. So the solution that is looked upon as the great salvation for peace and security in dealing with the criminal offender in our society is in fact this dead end street, and there is, if you want to put it this way, a kind of intellectual bankruptcy in the criminal justice system when it comes to dealing with offenders.
Secondly, the solution for detecting crimes, which is also what the government wants to deal with, and which is a matter of some concern to the general public, is a greater invasion of individual privacy. I know the government has talked about the kind of safeguards that exist with respect to the code and the protection of the rules for judges' applications, and one thing and another, but I do not think it takes very much analysis to realize that the government is trying to introduce into this parliament what it would not produce in the last parliament because parliament would not accept that extent of invasion of privacy. If the government thinks it has won its case in the one report published by the Solicitor General, a report which is lacking for the most part in any direct information in respect of this particular question, it is very sorely mistaken.
I wonder, therefore, why we have had such a great deal of huffing and puffing by the government in bringing forth this kind of legislative proposal. Seriously, I would ask the Minister of Justice, if he were here, or the Solicitor General, who is here, if they can tell us before this debate concludes on second reading where in any country, in any experience in any society, the action of invasion of privacy or more extended sentencing in federal institutions is the solution to violent or increasing criminal rates in our society? Certainly they have not indicated this in any documentation or speeches that have been produced to date.
I find this kind of a custody-conscious bill a reflection of the most limited kind of thinking. In fact, I have too much respect for both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to believe that those particular Liberal gentlemen would, of their own persuasion, have arrived at this kind of paucity of thought in respect of the matters we are faced with in this bill.
I do not want to get into a lot of details on this bill because we will do that in committee, but the suggestion that the answer in dealing with those who escape with increasing frequency from federal institutions is to totally close off their remission time and, even more important, to double the sentence from five to ten years, seems to me to be totally hopeless and unworkable. I would like to know from those who work with these offenders or inmates in

April 7, 1976
Measures Against Crime
our federal institutions how they will look upon this kind of proposal as being workable in their own situation. Again, one can only assume that these ministers have indeed been extremely poorly advised.


An hon. Member:: That's not right.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I hope the minister has time to study the bill, because that is the way I read it. If that is not the case I would be delighted to have that clarified at the committee. Perhaps the hon. minister would agree with me that there is in this bill an automatic doubling from five to ten years.


William Warren Allmand: It is possible, but that is the maximum.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That is the maximum, but I wonder why it is put in there. I do not think you change the laws just for the fun of doing it. I hope you do not.


William Warren Allmand: There is no automatic loss of remission.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That is one thing that can certainly be clarified in committee, and I am very glad to hear that. I am disturbed by the import. I would ask the minister seriously, and I refer to what I said earlier, why there is this sleight of hand creating these illusions? Why say it is not automatic but is just raising the limit; for what reason? I think the sleight of hand the minister is engaged in is very dangerous and I am going to tell him a little later why I think so.
I have been impressed, and I hope the ministers have been as well, by the information coming forward from the Law Reform Commission. I do not like to use this term because it is not quite fair in describing the Law Reform Commission, but it seems to me that the government has created a kind of monster. The government makes a move in one direction to take what I consider a reactionary and non-productive posture in respect of our criminal justice system, while the Law Reform Commission moves in another direction and suggests that we look seriously at what we have been doing with our criminal justice system in the last 25 to 30 years.
The Law Reform Commission tells us in its recent report that we have one of the most punishment-oriented systems in the western world. Surely the Solicitor General cannot be happy with that situation.


William Warren Allmand: The Law Reform Commission approved of the program a few weeks ago.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am not sure which program the minister is referring to.


William Warren Allmand: The Chairman was asked about it at the justice committee a few weeks ago and he said he approved of this program.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I will read the testimony later, but at this time I can only judge by the report the Commission has put forward.
The government seems to be taking a punitive approach, increasing sentences of offenders, as the proper solution, whereas the Law Reform Commission tells us that the only countries which have been having success and improve-

ment in reforming the criminal justice system have been those going in exactly the opposite direction. I will say a word or two about that in a second.
It is my belief that the basis of the problem here is that the legislative proposal is founded on false premises. I think I have some understanding why this is, and I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here because I do not like to be challenging some of the things he has said in his speech without giving him some opportunity to respond.
The operative word the minister uses in introducing this legislation is an interesting one. It is not one I expected to hear from the mouth of the Minister of Justice. I might have expected to hear it from somebody in my profession, which is the clergy, because we like to use this word "concern". It is a good sort of theological word which implies some sort of moral suasion or commitment.
The Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the administration of justice in this country, talks about getting at this problem which has been a matter of public concern, and I am really using the words he used in his speech, "of public concern." I am concerned about this word "concern", because this is not a precise term. It is rather a reflection of a feeling, an anxiety or a fear.
It had been my hope that the minister, in introducing this legislation, would have brought forward a bill that responded to factual situations and not to some kind of ill-defined concern, anxiety or fear that individual people in small numbers or in large numbers may have. We know that in the volatile times in which we live anxieties can be generated very quickly, sometimes founded on legitimate issues but at other times falsely perceived and falsely understood. I do not think it is good enough for the Minister of Justice or any other person to say that this kind of peace and security measure in large part responds to "concerns."
I was very much disturbed while reading the document entitled "The Highlights of the Peace and Security Program". In certain instances it talks about dealing with the kind of concerns that people have. I cannot find the part here which I wish to quote. In the introductory part it talks about public concerns. It talks about the impression that certain violent crimes have over-all on the appreciation of society of how the criminal justice system works. I do wish to quote, however, from a recent article which I would commend to the ministers.
Two gentlemen, Waller and Chan, in an article entitled "Prison Use; A Canadian and International Comparison", compared trends in the use of prisons in various countries from 1910 to 1970. There is a market fluctuation, and they state:
We should point out that these dates appear to refute the hypothesis that the use of imprisonment remains constant over time.
Tying this in with the Law Reform Commission's stand about the misuse of the criminal law, it has been noted historically that countries in times of social unease tend to pass laws which encroach more and more on the liberty of the individual. That is, the arm of the law reaches farther into the background of actions leading to an actual crime.
April 7, 1976

There are some elements in this particular bill which, to me, very gravely jeopardize traditional civil rights in this country. For one thing there are one or two instances at least, and there may be more after some study, where this bill seems to anticipate guilt. I point to the request by the government for increased invasion of privacy through electronic eavesdropping, but more particularly through this whole business of being able-and I am dealing only with one aspect of the gun control aspect because this matter has been covered fully by a number of other speakers-of being able to seize without warrant. I refer to this particular proposed section 103(1) which mentions that a peace officer may seize, without warrant or without reasonable grounds, a firearm.
Even in the case of the removal of the serial number from a gun the individual would be placed in the position of having to prove he did not alter, deface or remove the serial number on a restricted weapon. This seems to turn around completely the traditonal rule of an individual being innocent before proven guilty. I ask the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General to be more specific about the concerns that motivated the introduction of Bill C-83. I ask this because unless we have a clear picture of exactly what we are attempting to deal with by this legislation I think parliament and the general public are placed in an impossible position of trying to devise appropriate legislation. I ask this because it seems to me there are at least five major questions that have not been dealt with by this bill. I wish to mention them quickly.
First of all a primary preoccupation of this bill seems to be with the question of violence. I have already indicated, by one quotation at least, that the government itself is not sure whether violence is on the increase or is remaining about the same. Regardless of whether or not it is increasing we are not told in any substantial terms what are the causes of this violence. Where is it occurring with greater frequency? What are we really dealing with when we attempt in this very limited bill to grapple with the subject of violence in our society? Quite frankly, I think it is not only superficial but a non-productive facing of the issue with regard to this particular legislation.
I think we must-and this should be the job of the Solicitor General or of the Minister of Justice-come to terms with the greater and greater acceptability of violence often in our society. There is no doubt that in our time in many instances violence has become an acceptable tool of conflict resolution. This message certainly is repeated ad nauseam. It is exposed dramatically in the mass media. It is very much the message we have in the dealings nations have with each other, or very often in the confrontation which exists between large corporations and institutions in our society.
I wonder if we are not being a little ludicrous when we make out that violence is not acceptable in one fairly limited sphere and yet give it very great prominence and acceptability in a number of others. I do not think we really understand yet what we mean by dealing with violence in our society.
Second, because of the direction to establish a crime commission and because of the request for the greater freedom with regard to wiretapping, there is the attempt on the part of the government to deal with what it calls
Measures Against Crime
serious and organized crime. Again to me that, at the outset, seems to be a kind of a limited view of the automatic acceptance that everybody knows what we and the government are talking about in respect of organized crime.
What is organized or large-scale crime in our society today? It is not some kind of a general activity that is carried on by people who are not part and parcel of various elements of our society. Organized crime today, which is a large multibillion dollar enterprise, a trans-nation activity, has links with many aspects of our economy and society.
The very fact of the growth of the bureaucracies and institutions ensures that crime becomes much more institutionalized and organized. I wonder whether we have thought of the implications for our own situation in respect of the recent revelations which have occurred in the United States in which it has been discovered that a major agency of the United States government, the Central Intelligence Agency, was in fact employing members of the Mafia to execute and carry on some of its espionage practices and undercover work because they were much better equipped for this sort of thing. What does this mean to us today-the fact that there can be an actual link-up between an agency or a public body such as the CIA and the Mafia?
When we talk about organized crime I think the minister will have to tell us a good deal more about the oppressive or sweeping powers that are being requested without any clear understanding of how they will affect the individual in society and society as a whole.
Third, I really do not think we have properly defined or attempted to define what is crime, or what today is the actual definition of crime. I think it is appropriate and kind of ironic that at the very time we are discussing this bill the Law Reform Commission should have introduced one of its recent reports called "Our Criminal Law", in which it sets out the need for a new definition of what in fact are criminal acts. It calls for a criminal code which clearly defines its aim of protecting, maintaining, and reinforcing the few basic rights which are recognized by all. It recommends in fact that the code be uncluttered with many offences which could be classified as regulatory offences, with appropriate lesser penalties. The commission sees this as an effective way to make better and more socially educational use of the courts and to lessen the loads in our over used prisons.
In the conclusions of the Report of the Law Reform Commission on our criminal law are listed four criteria for the offences which should be considered under criminal law and regulatory sanctions. I will not quote these because they are available to members. I believe that we must come to grips with the true nature of criminal offences in the kind of pluralistic society in which we live today.
Fourth, there has not been recognition of the problems that exist within our judicial process, the true nature of the relationship of the police-court system to the average citizen. Surely we have to grapple with this effectively and try to produce solutions to protect the rights of individuals

April 7, 1976
Measures Against Crime
and to ensure that they are not further damaged in these legislative proposals.
Fifth and finally, because it is a subject that has interested me for many years, I do not see here any recognition of the fact that our prison system has failed utterly to be either a source of security and protection for society generally or a protection of the legitimate rights of the individuals who are from time to time incarcerated.
In many ways-and this has not been admitted by the government-certain aspects of our criminal justice system are a disgrace. In fact the government has reacted to myths; it has tried, by its own understanding of public opinion, which has been in some cases badly informed, to deal only with the effects of violent crime in our society. It has provided a kind of band-aid solution. I think there has been a total failure to grapple with the basic causes and not come up with workable suggestions and solutions in this Chamber. Incredibly, instead we have legislation before us which, in my opinion, largely reinforces in a number of instances false concerns and anxieties. May I say that it will make it much more difficult to solve these problems in the future and ultimately more dangerous and more insecure for the public at large.
I believe that the government has the responsibility to give leadership. We are going through a system of social change. We have to think clearly and freshly about how we will clarify criminal actions and deal with offenders in our society, but we are certainly not going to do it with this bill.
I think the government has responded with a rather naive document offering the illusion or the veneer of a solution, with only short-term benefits to itself but a very real long-term cost to our country in human and social terms.
I hope very sincerely that when this debate is concluded on second reading and the bill goes to committee a serious attempt will be made by all members to present the government with a much better package out of committee than has been sent to it.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with a good deal of what the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) has said, but I think I come to a different conclusion from him. I think there are some good things in the bill and I think it should be given second reading. Then, I think, it should be amended. I do not think it is helpful to throw out the whole thing.
Three of my colleagues, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), have spoken on second reading of this bill. I agree with what they have said and I want to add only a few points.
First of all, I want to deal with the form of the bill. This bill is a hodge podge of different provisions. In fact, it is about six different bills all rolled into one. It contains 72 pages. I wonder why those who draft our legislation seem completely incapable of ever being concise or precise. These lengthy and elaborate provisions which appear in all the legislation that comes before us are not a source of clarity but a source of confusion, and from the point of

view of form I think this bill is an example of what I would call a monstrosity of verbiage.
My general view of the bill can best be described in the same way as the curate described the egg provided for him at the vicar's breakfast table. He was asked what he thought of it and he said "sir, it is good in parts." I think that this is a fair description of this bill. We have made it clear that, because it has some good parts which are necessary, we think it should be supported on second reading, and we will do our best to have it amended and indeed some parts of it deleted.
I agree with the hon. member for Egmont-I will say it quite briefly-that the title of "peace and security" is a very pretentious title for this bill. It may make some contribution to peace and security, but it is perfectly obvious that alone it will be totally inadequate for that purpose. There is no easy way to achieve peace and security. It involves striking at the causes of criminal activity and it involves striking at the causes of violence. Indeed, it means an awful lot more than just making the penalties more severe. I suppose there is a case for severity sometimes in the field of criminal law, but it is an absolute delusion, and one much too widely shared, that somehow or other you are reducing crime by making sentences more severe as a general rule. It does not work that way.
I think that the hon. member for New Westminster was absolutely right when he said that a real effort to tackle the problems of narcotics-which are a direct cause of a large amount of criminal offences in this country-is called for in order to have peace and security. I think we need a much greater effort to achieve social justice, particularly as it applies to our native population who have been deprived in our society of their own way of life, and who have sometimes tended to lose human dignity and have become involved in petty crimes involving jail sentences, perhaps because they cannot afford to pay the fines that might be imposed. One of the greatest things which this House could do for peace and security would be to insist on justice in respect of aboriginal claims to land and an early settlement of these claims before the Indian land is handed over for development in a way which destroys our native society. If we did that sort of thing we would have a lot more peace and security.
In order to obtain peace and security we need a thorough review and revision of our criminal law. It is timely that the Law Reform Commission-and the hon. member for Egmont has referred to this already-recently issued a report on criminal law which called for no less than the reshaping of criminal law. Acceptance of the philosophy of that report in words and action will do more to provide peace and security than the present legislation.
One of the most effective ways to deter the commission of criminal acts is to have effective means of detection and enforcement of the law. Deterrents are useless unless people have a fairly good understanding of the fact that they are likely to be applied to their cases if they are caught.
There has been no real revision of our Criminal Code for many years. About ten years ago there was a revision but it was superficial in nature; it did not go to the roots of the problem.
April 7, 1976

According to the Law Reform Commission report, the removal from the code of offences not considered wrongful enough to warrant intervention of the criminal law, acts whose wrongness is controversial, and acts which deal merely with property matters deserve special consideration. A test as to what should be a real crime is said to be that which does serious harm to other people or seriously contravenes our values so as to be harmful to society. I am convinced that if we could cut down the number of crimes and enforce the law adequately, we would be making a real contribution to this question. I am afraid we are not really doing that by this piece of legislation.
The report goes on to say that if all those questions are answered affirmatively, we should then ask should the act be prohibited as a criminal offence within the Criminal Code? As the hon. member for Egmont said, the report goes on to suggest that many offences should be dealt with by regulations, can be perfectly satisfactorily dealt with that way and need not be made part of the criminal law or involve criminal records at all. If the criminal law were so amended, the burden on the police and the courts could subsequently be reduced, and efficient enforcement would be advanced.
I now want to deal with some of the terms of the bill. Probably the most important of these is the gun control legislation. Like many other hon. members of the House I have received a good deal of mail on this subject, par-ticuarly from those who belong to gun clubs and similar organizations, and I may say most of it came in the same form. All the letters are obviously form letters which have been sent. I do not know whether other hon. members have had the same experience.


Mr. Korchinski:: No.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It is sometimes suggested that to require a person to obtain a licence to possess a weapon is an infringement of civil liberties. I certainly do not see it as such. I have taken a good deal of interest in the question of civil liberties during my career, both before and after I was elected to this place, but I have never believed it wrong to say to a person that if he is going to use a dangerous thing, he should show that he is capable of using it, and that he should be licensed to do so. We do that with regard to cars. A car is a dangerous thing. We licence them, and everyone accepts that. Why, in the name of fortune, is not a gun a dangerous thing? We know very well that it is a dangerous thing.
The document produced by the government called "Highlights of the Peace and Security Program" points out that, of the number of murders committed, the number of murders committed with firearms increased from 178 in 1970 to 272 in 1974. It is no sacrifice of our civil liberties to try tc prevent this toll as a result of unwarranted and dangerous use of guns. Guns are the most common murder weapons and claim almost half of all murder victims. Therefore I see no reason for anyone to be so self-centred and so selfish as to object to having to get a licence and to show that he has been trained to use a gun and is competent to use it. I think this should be in the code, and I hope it will be put into the code.
Measures Against Crime
As I understand it, subject to regulation, licences have to be obtained for a five year period. A new licence need not be obtained every year. If a licence is refused by the registrar, there is a right of appeal. I hope the committee will try to make sure that the appeal process is quick and inexpensive because I do not think people should be put to a great deal of expense in dealing with these matters.
There is a special problem for native people and others whose livelihood depends on the use of guns. This should be discussed with the native groups, with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and with others who are concerned. I do not think such people whose livelihood is very meagre should have to pay fees, but I do believe that fees should be set out in the code. I do not have a gun; I do not anticipate having a gun; but if I did I would like to know what I have to pay by way of an act of parliament rather than having some regulation raising the gun permit fee whenever somebody felt disposed to do so. We should take the responsibility of setting out the amount of the fee, and it would help to satisfy people who are interested in this gun legislation that it is reasonable.
There is provision for two guarantors. I state here a purely personal opinion, but I am extremely doubtful about the value of having two guarantors. I do not care exactly who they are. They are asked only to say that they know of nothing which would render a person unfit to have a licence. I do not know how that is to be enforced or what sanction there is. I suspect this will turn out to be a vain provision and just a nuisance, but perhaps the committee will look into this to find some good reason for this provision.
I was alarmed at first by the proposal that a police officer without a warrant should have the power to go and search for, seize, and take away a gun from someone when it is felt that there is a danger, and there is not time to obtain the otherwise required warrant. However, I have reconsidered my view on that because I believe there are circumstances which can exist whereby life is at stake. There may be a domestic squabble in which someone might be under the influence. Two neighbours may get into one of those bitter fights about boundaries between properties. When these situations exist and when someone is threatening to use a gun, I do not think there is time to go and obtain legal forms. In those circumstances I think police officers would be justified in seizing guns.
I hope there will be expeditious means for an owner to get his gun back if he can satisfy a court that there is no danger involved in his having the weapon. The question of search will have to be examined by the committee, but in the circumstances I think the safety and sanctity of human life stand above any possible interference with a person's civil liberties in that respect.
There are many other items with regard to the gun control provisions which will require careful scrutiny. Those who are interested in this field should make their representations to the committee which will, no doubt, weigh carefully what they say and report to parliament any changes which may be required. However, taking it on balance, I do not think we should seek to defeat this bill because I believe some measure of gun control is overdue and required at the present time.

April 7, 1976
Measures Against Crime
There is another part of this legislation which I repudiate entirely, and that is that part which deals with electronic surveillance, as it is called, or as it is known to simpler people, wiretapping. Just a year or so ago there was legislation on this subject. We discussed it thoroughly, and the justice committee discussed it thoroughly. We brought in legislation, which was rejected at first by the Senate, but then the Senate finally accepted it. I do not know why we have to change that; and the changes are in the wrong direction.
What is wiretapping? Wiretapping is a particularly offensive invasion of private rights. Its value is extremely dubious. I have a quotation here from Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney general. In testimony to the justice and legal affairs committee of the U.S. Congress in 1973 he said, "Wiretapping was not used between 1966 and 1969, yet indictments against members of organized crime tripled."
He concluded that wiretapping is a wasteful and inefficient means of investigation and is not, moreover, effective against organized crime. He went on to say, "Wiretapping destroys the professionalism of investigators. Electronic surveillance encourages, not investigation, but just sitting and waiting for something to happen."
I can understand that the police like to have these gadgets. We all have a weakness for gadgets in this part of the world and I do not blame the police for wanting to have wiretapping available to them. Indeed we have conceded a limited right to conduct such operations after proper authorization. What I do not like in the least is the suggestion that we take out of the legislation the clause which says that if evidence has been obtained illegally it cannot be used in court.
I cannot understand the purpose of making something illegal and then allowing it to be used as part of a legal process. Nor can I understand the objection to notice after the event. I believe notice has to be given in 60 days and that it is possible to obtain an extension for another 90 days. This makes 180 days, and if by that time an investigation has not been completed, it ought to have been; there is no need to keep an investigation going on forever. If somebody is wiretapping me I want to know about it, and I want to be able to fight it because it is a serious invasion of privacy.
We are living in a world where there are too many invasions of privacy. What we should be doing here is trying to extend the right of privacy, not curtail it. In one corner we have the police, and in the other we find the people who believe in fundamental rights and liberties. While I personally respect the police I think they have gone much too far in their idea that they can tell us precisely what we should do in this area as members of parliament. We have our own responsibility, and I hope we discharge it in such a way as not to extend the practice of bugging or wiretapping or electronic surveillance in general.
I wish to deal now with the section of the bill which has to do with special criminal inquiries. Some are dubious as to the value of such inquiries, but I think they might serve a useful purpose if there is a fairly prevalent crime which is infecting some area of society and in regard to which the

facts ought to be brought out without the necessity of charges being laid. There are, however, grave dangers involved in such a procedure.
I myself had an opportunity to be counsel before the commission on crime in the province of Ontario. The hearings were well attended by the press. There was a most extraordinary collection of witnesses, mostly people with criminal backgrounds, backgrounds of organized crime. They talked a lingo which was hard to understand. But one thing was not hard to understand; they thought nothing of making the most slanderous statements in the witness box about people who were not there, people who did not have a chance to speak for themselves. And the press would rush to print those statements because they had been made in the course of a commission of inquiry and presumably were privileged.
I say the people who conduct these inquiries should be given the power to tell the press or anyone else. "You can listen to this but you must not publish anything which is defamatory to individuals without at least their having an opportunity to answer any charges which might be made." This would be one way of avoiding trial by use of headlines, something we do not need in this country. I hope an amendment will be made to this clause in an effort to ensure that safeguards are established against such a possibility.
I conclude as I began by saying that some of this legislation is useful and some of it is deplorable, but in order to get the useful part we should at least send it to the committee.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the bill we are now studying and whose title refers to "peace and security" will, I think, bring something altogether different from peace and security, unless it means peace and security for the criminals and not peace and security for the silent majority of all honest Canadians.
When the minister introduced the bill, he opened the written remarks accompanying it by saying that he wanted to protect the rights and dignity of those accused of infractions. This unfortunately means, Mr. Speaker, that from now on we will have to show a lot of concern and comprehension for the accused. Bill C-83 will probably have dire consequences for the majority of honest Canadians and it is very reassuring for the minority who lives apart from them. This bill has been introduced as an omnibus bill in order to make us swallow totally inacceptable things along with others which could be palatable.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal particularly with two aspects of this bill. First, I think that the registration of firearms will automatically lead to the confiscation of these arms as was the case in all countries which have voted a similar legislation. This would be a downright violation of the rights of the honest people, forbidding them to indulge in certain activities during their leisure time such as marksmanship competitions and hunting. But what is more important is that the citizens would be left in a state of total insecurity and could not protect themselves from the outlaws, the criminals and all the crooks of the country. Mr. Speaker, when firearms are confiscated, only outlaws keep theirs.
April 7, 1976

In time of war or political upheaval, anywhere in the world, the registration of weapons has always ended in confiscation, leaving the people at large unarmed and helpless. The unarmed citizen easily becomes a victim of anarchy, tyranny and totalitarianism. History has provided us with a good many examples.
In Cuba, Batista proceeded also with the registration of weapons in order, said he, to prevent Castro from having them for his guerrilla warfare. Only the loyal Cubans at the time did register their weapons, while Castro's revolutionaries never cared to register theirs, as any other revolutionaries are doing in the world. Today, Castro is in possession of all the weapons, because he confiscated them all after Batista had them registered. The Cuban people are at the present time defenseless and at the mercy of Castro's dictatorship.
Then, it is easy to say for the leftist and communistic propaganda, to say that Cubans are peaceful people. People who are unarmed and defenseless are at the mercy of any tyranny: there is no choice but to be peaceful. We only need to remember what happened in Hungary a few years ago. Hitler once said: The biggest mistake we could make would be to allow citizens of various origins to carry arms, for history is there to show that all conquerors who allowed their native subjects to be armed have prepared their own defeat.
In 1938, Hitler had turned Germany into a totalitarian state and had confiscated all firearms. Only the members of the Nazi Party could own firearms. France, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark were countries where firearms had to be registered before World War II. As the Nazi armies penetrated further into Europe, they confiscated the weapons registration records in the invaded countries, took over the weapons and thus reduced the possibility of resistance accordingly.
If the opposition disarms, that is all well and good. If it refuses to do so, then we ourselves must do it, as Joseph Stalin said in 1927. For a long time now, th communist strategy throughout the world has been to clamor for disarmament for the sake of a pseudo-detente policy, while they, the communists, accelerate the arming of their troops, for it is quite easy to take over the control of a disarmed nation.
In Europe, the Czechoslovaks laid down their arms while Rumania, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and several other countries were readily disarmed, firearms being registered and easily confiscated without alarming anyone. In China, the registration of weapons has resulted in the disarmament of the Chinese people, which preceded the reign of terror. Chinese people have been tortured and executed, and today, after having been "broken" in the blood of millions of Chinese, they have come to be respectful of their great leader Mao who, in his spirit of democratic competition, has never called a general election because all citizens must adore him.
Northern Ireland is another tragic illustration of a situation resulting from the registration of the weapons which were confiscated by the government. The Presbyterian Journal of February 9, 1972, quoting an Irish newspaper, wrote this: "The government has withdrawn all licensed
Measures Against Crime
guns in the province and the police has called on all the owners of weapons and ordered them to surrender their guns." With all their weapons registered and confiscated the population is helpless against the attacks of the IRA. Tyrants never could nor dared invade a country whose population was armed.
In 1939-40, a country with only 4 million people among whom were crack shots who had been trained through a long dedication to sports had foreseen the communist takeover. That country was Finland which managed to stand up to and humiliate the powerful army of Russia with its 170 million people.
In 1940, while the German armies were on the other side of the channel, England begged for Canadian and U.S. weaponry to equip its homeguard, as arm control by the British government had left the British utterly disarmed and unable to protect their families, homes and homeland. It is then that the Canadians and Americans, who were very concerned and had weapons available, offered them to the British who needed them desperately. Switzerland is another country which has placed its security and future into the hands of honest and well armed citizens. That country has not as yet been invaded nor brought into subjection.
Here in Canada, they want to put the destiny of Canadians between the hands of a dishonest and armed minority, against the interest of the honest and disarmed majority. The two nations with the highest percentage of gun owners in the world are Israel and Switzerland and yet they have the lowest homicide rates in the world.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that the argument that guns should be taken away from people to avoid accidents is perfectly stupid and unjustified. How many people know that 5 per cent of the Russian population are real communists? How can 5 per cent of the population control the other 95 per cent? Simple: the 5 per cent control all the arms, leaving the rest slaves and unarmed.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, will allow the civil servants who will be hired to implement this legislation to perpetrate legally the worst abuses of power, while being protected by the law derived from this bill. Therefore, I wish to draw Your Honour's attention to clause 105(z) page 17 of the bill; which states:
Where, with respect to any person, a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of that person, or of other persons, that that person should have in his possession, custody or control any firearm ... the peace officer may without warrant search for and seize any firearm or other offensive weapon or any ammunition or explosive substance in the possession, custody or control of that person.
This clause, Mr. Speaker, gives any peace officer the powers to do anything to anybody. It gives a discretionary power to the police and will enable any peace officer to discriminate against anybody. This clause states: Where a peace officer is satisfied, which means he may seize without warrant. The word "satisfied" enables any officer to be justified in taking-deliberately or otherwise-any kind of reprehensible and discriminatory action under the mantle of legality. When the peace officer has reasonable grounds for believing, says the bill; it means that a police officer may always argue that he has grounds for taking legal steps, even the most reprehensible ones, deliberate or not.

April 7, 1976
Measures Against Crime
Mr. Speaker, how can anyone not think for a moment of a Mr. Desrochers, a provincial Liberal organizer in Quebec, just before a provincial election, when his party might run the risk of being defeated by the opposition, whether it be the Parti Quebecois or otherwise? He might easily react to such a threat, with his usual keen mind by a well organized strategy, using Liberal policemen in the Quebec Police Force or in various other police corps to ensure that two days before the poll, federal or provincial, police officers seize firearms without warrant almost simultaneously. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, without warrant they proceed to seize various firearms belonging to Pequists, Crediters or opponents most in the public eye in their localities, after the police itself has set the stage, a sort of repetition of the American Watergate, in order that before the election throughout Quebec they can recreate in some other way a climate of fears and panic as was the case in the last provincial election and making believe that Pequists or opponents were prepared to enter into an armed rebellion on election day.
Similar schemes could easily be devised by Liberals or others for the purpose of destroying opponents by resorting to every possible form of power abuse sanctioned under this bill. When one knows how the American CIA proceeds, Mr. Speaker, one can suppose that such initiatives could also take place here in Canada.
And then we hear from former officer Robert Samson that the RCMP could have organized thefts to seize some papers! This bill will allow all abuses of authority that used to be made illegally and blamed on thieves even though they had been done by members of the RCMP, as Robert Samson indicated recently.
From now on, all abuses of authority will be allowed. We have only to recall that not even six years ago, after the FLQ troubles, certain people did not hesitate to recommend that the federal government use weapons when the weak and delicate Bourassa government was supposed to be overthrown, as some people wanted us to believe. Mr. Speaker, by registering weapons, it will be easy to invoke a so-called political crisis, whether it is organized, anticipated or unforeseen, so as to confiscate weapons throughout Quebec or any other province and prevent Quebecers from defending themselves against eventual abuses of authority and force them to remain under the rule of the federal government, which could be itself at the bottom of all these abuses of authority. We have unfortunately seen this happen in many countries.
We therefore prefer to endanger the innocent and honest majority because we are afraid to attack the criminals, who are for the most part very well organized, and whom we want to re-habilitate, according to the Attorney General, but until they are rehabilitated, if this can be done, honest people are at their mercy. Apparently we want to fight crime because of this increase in the crime rate, but this legislation will pith the criminals against unarmed people since throughout the world, the registration of weapons has always led to their being confiscated. We may say that this is demagogy, Mr. Speaker, but the registration of weapons has always led to their being confiscated.

Why do we have such a legislation while Quebec has already better gun control than any other area of Canada? We should imitate Quebec instead of making it suffer the consequences of a legislation issued from the fact that it is too easy to obtain and handle weapons in other provinces. Why make Quebec pay for the errors made in other provinces where it was much too easy to get arms? Quebec should be imitated in this regard because until now everything there has been going fine when it comes to that since in Quebec there is an extremely severe control over gun licensing. Even Granby Chief of Police Joseph Couture, a man of considerable experience and integrity, has had to wait for over four weeks to get his permit to carry a gun, for a very extensive investigation was carried out before he could get it. Even he could not elude the severe control we have in Quebec.
That is an example, Mr. Speaker, among so many others I could quote and which proves that in Quebec this matter is not taken lightly when dealers and sellers of various arms are subject to rules and an extremely strict control. Rod and gun clubs are not controlled or administered by stupid or irresponsible people because in those clubs members are taught the art of using and handling arms before a permit is recommended for a member. Why want to impose a legislation that does not meet at all the desires of all responsible and knowledgeable people who want to use arms every day in a responsible way?
Mr. Speaker, this bill is an insult to responsible people, particularly those in Quebec who until now have behaved like responsible people about such dangerous arms because we do not have only those things to deplore across Quebec, as some seem to want to suggest in this House. The only argument that is made up is that accidents must be prevented. That argument is the cover concealing other purposes that will not or cannot be told. I am not afraid to see arms in the hands of those in charge of all rod and gun clubs; I am not afraid to see arms in the hands of responsible individuals who are subject like all policemen or rod and gun club members to a very strict control administered by people responsible to members or municipal authorities or subject to a control like the one we have in Quebec.
I am really afraid to see the majority of honest people defenceless in front of a minority of irresponsible criminals. If a professional, architect, doctor, lawyer, notary or father of a family of 15 children or any individual owning property sees his property endangered by any criminal or by an individual who prefers to live off the work of others rather than his own and who decided himself to share the assets of that damned capitalism by attaking any of those assets, how it is possible for honest and law-abiding owners to protect themselves from notorious or potential criminals? They have arms and are the first to disobey the law on the registration of weapons because irresponsible people and criminals do not care about the law, the property of others and they will also not care about the legislation being now considered on the registration of arms. How will honest people be able to protect themselves, how will the millions of individuals who live far from police services be able to protect themselves against criminals who will have easy and unprotected preys at their mercy?
I would want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, on statements made by experienced authorities on the subject
April 7, 1976

and not technocrats or civil servants who will eventually have to deal with this legislation, who acquired the experience in sociology inspired by marxist papers in favour of greater freedom for criminals. And I would like here to quote, for example, from remarks by-

-Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, England. He said:
Fifty years of gun control have been useless in stemming the tide of gun related crime. Since 1963 the rate of armed crime in England has risen a staggering 400 per cent. ...
Guns were always available to any criminal who chose to use them. Firearms controls do not appear to have stopped this class of criminal from obtaining a gun when he thought he could use one . ..
The odds against him being caught may be something like seven or ten to one in his favour. When the death penalty is applied, he is not prepared to accept seven or ten to one odds on a chance of being hanged. Capital punishment and violent crime seem to be tied together in some form. ...
No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less than when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearms without restriction.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in submissions from experienced individuals but not from people who spent years in schools and do not have the knowledge of our policemen responsible for protecting mostly honest Canadians. And as representative of a constituency of this extensive country I think that our first responsibility is to protect the great majority of honest people who make up our Canadian society. It is not with a greater liberalization that we will control criminals, obtain more respect for our country and our property because the country would be left at the mercy of extremists and revolutionists as elsewhere in the world.
This occurred elsewhere, Mr. Speaker, when firearms were registered. In all the countries of the world were firearms were registered, 25 years afterwards, they were seized and the honest people were left at the mercy of idiots, lunatics and criminals.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to be able to address myself to Bill C-83. My intention primarily in the debate today is to talk specifically about the gun control aspects of this legislation. I do not intend to deal with equally significant and important aspects of the bill at this time which touch upon crime inquiries, detection and electronic surveillance, dangerous offenders, habitual criminals, and strengthening measures to ensure adequate custody and safer techniques for the release of inmates, and other broad questions of crime prevention.
The gun control aspect of this bill has provoked an enormous amount of controversy in society and I feel that at this stage of the debate, in view of the limitation of time,
I would prefer to deal specifically with this particular aspect of the legislation.
The first point I want to make is more a semantic one, a matter of window dressing. Bill C-83 on its front page calls
Measures Against Crime
the legislation "An Act to provide for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime". It seems to me that that description of the contents of the bill is very offensive to those who are law-abiding citizens and who are about to be controlled in terms of their use of firearms. It would seem to me much better to refer to the bill along the following lines: "An Act to amend the Criminal Code through (1), provisions for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime, and (2), provisions to control the use of firearms in Canada." That at least would not carry with it the implication that the control of firearms was directly related to the perpetrators of violent and other crime in Canada. I think this has created a rather unhealthy approach to the matter on the part of those who feel legitimately aggrieved by some of the provisions in Bill C-83.
The next point I would make has to do with the use of time allocation, in other words, House rule 75C, to limit second reading debate. As all members know, we have had some days now on second reading, but this allocation of time, limiting further debate to four days, is something I basically support providing it is the mechanism that will bring the matter before the committee where the public and those who have real need for input will be given a longer period of time to make their views known.
In the debate which took place on the use of Standing Order 75C, opposition members drew the attention of the House to the fact that there were no guarantees given that there would be adequate time in Committee. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), whose speech I listened to in the debate, indicated that this was one of the motivating forces behind the allocation of time. I certainly hope that the House, and particularly the committee at committee stage, will give adequate time to allow the citizens of this country and groups concerned with the various aspects of the bill opportunity to make a meaningful input, and that the committee itself will very carefully consider the representations that have been made and will be made.
I think all hon. members know-certainly I do as a result of my experience in the House since 1968-that whenever parliament tries to amend the Criminal Code it evokes a great deal of controversy. The gun control aspects of this bill have generated a great deal of debate with the public and an enormous amount of heat and, I think, emotion. The members of the committee in particular must listen very carefully to the views expressed by Canadians on this important subject. They must not reject criticism of the bill simply because it is expressed with emotion and passion. They must listen to all arguments and address themselves to the legitimate points that are being expressed in many instances. In this way both committee and the House will be able to make amendments and improve the legislation that is before us.
To illustrate the kind of views that exist in the community, I have received a great deal of correspondence and had a number of meetings with my constituents on this subject. I want to quote briefly from one group that wrote to me representing the Cannington Gun Club just outside my riding, in Cannington, Ontario. It is a rather lengthy letter so I shall just quote a couple of excerpts from it:

April 7, 1976
Measures Against Crime
Persons such as convicted perpetrators of violent crimes, the committed insane persons, proven drug addicts, and such persons who threaten peace and property of the majority should be forbidden to own firearms. However, these persons must be specifically listed in the legislation.
I think that illustrates the point that gun clubs, sporting groups and so on, are not so violently opposed to gun controls of all kinds that they do not recognize the legitimate concern of society when such firearms are put in the hands of those who clearly will not be using them responsibly, people whom we might suspect will use them in a fit of passion or emotion. These groups have raised a number of legitimate objections to the bill. I am not going to go through them in the context of the correspondence, but may I simply say that those who have raised objections to certain aspects of the bill are not all kooks. They have many legitimate concerns and we have to listen to those concerns.
There is, of course, a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding as to the nature of the gun control aspects of the legislation. Let me briefly outline my understanding of the primary thrust of this aspect of the bill. First, Bill C-83, in my view, will have little if any impact on criminals using guns. But this is not the primary thrust of the bill at all. It is quite evident that those who have firearms illegally are not going to rush out and try to register them; they will probably continue to possess guns and will have to be dealt with in the traditional way and, I hope, a stepped up means of surveillance will take guns out of their hands.
As I say, in my view this bill is not primarily directed toward that aspect of the matter; the bill is directed at law-abiding citizens, basically to ensure three things. The first is the licensing of gun users so that those who have histories of violence, who perhaps are drug users or have been convicted of criminal offences in which firearms have been involved, or those who are mentally incapable of adequately looking after firearms, will not be allowed to have such weapons. I think that is fair enough and I do not think anyone in society would really object to that at all.
Secondly, this law provides for a requirement by those who do posses firearms to ensure adequate storage in the handling of those firearms, so they will not fall into the hands of people who should not have them, or so they do not fall into the hands of those who in a highly emotional state would use them without thinking. If they were locked up this would give people an opportunity for second thought, so that they might perhaps not commit a crime of violence. These are people with no history of violence at all.
About a year or a year and a half ago in my own riding a number of murders, of a common law wife and, I think, three children were committed by one person who got into alcohol, went out and grabbed a gun. If the gun had been adequately stored and the ammunition locked away, there would have been time for second sober thought and this murder might not have been committed. The recent crimes in schools in Toronto and in Ottawa might to some extent have been averted if firearms had not been so quickly and readily available in homes. I think it important that we address ourselves to this question. Those who improperly or inappropriately store firearms will have the obligation upon them in law not to do so in the future. I think this
[Mr. Cafik.)
will help avoid some of the crimes of violence that do occur on the spur of the moment.
The third thrust is to prohibit the possession of certain types of weapons. Basically I have no objection to such thrusts. I primarily support them and I think that all reasonable people would do so as well. However, there are some legitimate concerns being expressed by Canadian people as to how this should best be done. I will now address myself to those concerns which need to be carefully considered, and amendments may be required at the committee stage to overcome the inherent difficulties in the presently proposed legislation.
There is the basic concern that this measure provides too much arbitrary power in the hands of the Governor in Council, and is subject to possible abuse in the administration of the law by either licensing officials or law enforcement officers. I think that concern is legitimate. It is not only legitimate in connection with this bill but in connection with all bills that parliaments pass.
On another bill of a similar nature, Bill C-58, I spoke very strongly, as I have in respect of other matters, about the delegation of powers through regulation and so on rather than having them specifically spelled out within a bill dealt with by parliament. Many people in Canada feel that same concern, and I should like to see this bill tidied up to some extent to remove, wherever possible, that arbitrariness which may exist through the Governor in Council or through enforcement agencies, spelling this out a little better and more carefully than this bill does. I think that is a legitimate concern and a matter the committee must address itself to in order to rectify this problem. Obviously we should attempt wherever possible to contain within the law sufficient safeguards to ensure that these concerns are in fact unwarranted.
Concern has also been expressed about the availability of licensing after the law is passed. We must ensure that the rights of our citizens are protected, and that the presumption is that a person should have the right to own a gun unless there is a specific and demonstrable reason why he should be prohibited from doing so. If there is a demonstrable reason, I think all reasonable people would agree.
Many people have guns for various reasons, collecting, legitimate sporting activities, and so on. They feel they run the risk of having their rights denied by an arbitrary enforcement of this law. We have to look at that side of the question and satisfy ourselves that the concerns they have expressed are either unwarranted or, if warranted, that corrective action is taken.
There is also a concern expressed about the bureaucratic institution of records in respect of ammunition sales. Every bureaucratic aspect of this bill should be looked at very carefully. The licensing procedures, I am sure, can be achieved in a simple way without the involvement of an enormous bureaucracy. However, knowing the tendency of government and the tendencies of civil servants who are very much inclined from time to time to feather bed and to provide new and better jobs for themselves, this may well create a kind of bureaucratic nightmare about which many of our citizens are expressing a legitimate concern. At the committee stage we should look at this question and at this
April 7, 1976

basic tendency of government to move in that direction so as to ensure under the law that this will not happen and that the people in our society will not be forced into that bureaucratic jungle which may be totally unnecessary.
The next point is with regard to the need for proper and adequate storage of guns. People have expressed the concern that they could be found criminally responsible even if they have adopted reasonable precaution in the storage of their guns. I do not think this concern, as I read the law, is a legitimate one, but I respect those who express that view, and I am quite prepared to listen further to these arguments. I think the committee should do the same thing to ensure that in fact we are not creating a condition whereby innocent people are to be made criminals because of something they did not do.
I am not in any way making a plea that we should amend the law in such a way that there is no responsibility for the safekeeping and storage of weapons and ammunition, because that is important. I do believe, however, that we have to approach this question with reason, to ensure that innocent people are not made the victims of our intentions in this regard.
Concern is also expressed in respect of storage in relation to the distinction between urban and rural environments. It seems to me quite clear that in an isolated case, for instance, of a trapper in the north where there is not a house within 50 miles, it would be unreasonable not to allow that trapper living alone within his home to keep his rifle in the house without locking it up. I see nothing wrong with that. The same situation does not prevail if you live in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, or some other area that has some urbanization. The committee ought to look at this question and the distinction that exists in reality between the storage of guns in an urban setting, in a semi-urban setting, and in a remote or rural setting.
We may be able to make an adjustment by amendment to this law that would take into account these realities of a big nation such as Canada so we do not impose totally unnecessary controls on people. We want controls where they are needed, but surely it is in nobody's interest to impose artificial controls when everybody would agree that such is evidently not required.
Concern is also expressed about the arbitrary power extended to enforcement officers in connection with storage procedures to take the weapons out of people's homes. I agree that our enforcement agencies should have the right, if they have reasonable ground to believe that a crime may be committed or that a person is unstable at a given moment in time, to go in and remove a weapon that might be used in a criminal activity, whether it be suicide, the murdering of children or wives, or whatever.
The real problem is how do we know that this legitimate need under the law will not be arbitrarily exercised by enforcement agencies against individuals whom they may not happen to like or want to harass in one way or another? I do not know how to settle that problem, but it is a problem. It is a concern felt by a society that has a great deal of distrust of law-enforcement agencies and of governments themselves.
It is on the basis of that distrust that people are moving now to question whether anybody will do anything right if
Measures Against Crime
we give them powers under the law. I respect that concern and feel the committee should look at this question to find out if there is any more satisfactory way to guarantee that that kind of power will not be exercised in an arbitrary way.
Perhaps one thing the committee ought to think about in this connection is that when enforcement officers arbitrarily use this power when it is not warranted, and when there is not reasonable ground, there ought to be some method by which the aggrieved persons can take action against the agency involved. That is one thought that may be useful.
Gun collectors have also expressed a concern. Perhaps here we need an amendment so that it is possible for gun collectors to have a special gun collector's licence allowing them to own and perhaps use prohibited weapons under adequate and proper control. It seems to me there is very little useful purpose to be served by this prohibition in respect of persons who may have $10,000, or even $100,000 worth of guns in their homes. We have all kinds of collectors; some collect antique cars, some guns, and some stamps. There is nothing inherently illegal or improper about doing that. I think we should consider those who have been engaged in this legitimate activity prior to exactment of this law so that perhaps they might be licensed in a special way. They have no record of misuse. They have been responsible for a number of years. I think there might be a special clause, perhaps a grandfather clause or what you will, that would address itself to those who really are law-abiding citizens in this country and who do not feel they are doing anything to affect adversely the rights of any other citizen.
The committee must ensure that no law-abiding citizens should have their possessions confiscated without compensation. I think this is a quite legitimate concern. It is one thing to confiscate something someone has and possesses illegally, but it is another thing to make the possession of something illegal that was not previously illegal, in respect of weapons or whatever the goods are, and confiscate them from a person without compensation. Surely there are basic rights in respect of property.
We as a parliament must address ourselves to the recognition of those rights. Let us not arbitrarily confiscate property, which people had a right to have, without compensation. Surely it is not expecting too much from a parliament which proposes a law and would pass that law in the broad public interest, to turn around and, after taking things from people in the public interest, have the public foot the bill for that confiscation.
Another point is that the committee must also carefully look at those provisions relating to the use of guns by those under 18 years of age to make sure that parents and others who want to train their children in the art or sport of hunting, skeet shooting, or whatever, would be entitled to do that without too much bureaucratic entanglement. The question also has been raised respecting two guarantors on a gun licence application. Who are those persons? Will it be possible to get a gun licence in the future?


Walter David Baker: And the liability too.

April 7, 1976
Measures Against Crime


Norman Augustine Cafik: As the hon. member mentions, there is also the liability involved. Does the liability revolve upon the guarantor? This is a question we must deal with in the law and not in the regulations so that the people concerned about this will be able to know what we are dealing with in parliament and will have an opportunity to express themselves against or in favour of the law we are proposing.
The last point I want to make is in respect of the old question of how deeply government should become involved in our personal lives. I think this is an old question and one which gives us all difficulty.
I am inclined to believe that the government should make as few laws as possible and should always have a clear and demonstrable reason for imposing itself on the social system through law. When abuses occur there is a public interest at stake, but clearly we must accept our responsibility when we deal with the question of passing laws and regulations. In respect of gun control, I believe this is an area to which we must address ourselves and where we must intervene to some extent, but I would hope that our intervention would be to the minimum so that we would maximize the guarantees and minimize the bureaucracy and disruption that such regulations and laws will impose on society.


Walter David Baker: And they should be related to the prevention of crime.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Clearly no one likes government involvement, but the government does have a responsibility in this area to ensure that those who are mentally disturbed and incapable of adequately using firearms, those who have been guilty of violent offences in the past and also those who have been guilty of criminal offences including the use of firearms, should not be allowed a licence. That is
understandable. Clearly we must also ensure that firearms are properly and adequately stored and that there is some responsibility on the owner for doing so.
In pursuing these legitimate objectives let us not become lost in this whole bureaucratic entanglement. Let us carefully, as a committee, look at this whole question. Let us look at some of the points I have raised, and at some I have not raised because of the limitation of time. We must genuinely address ourselves to these concerns. I think the most damaging thing that could happen to us as members of parliament and to the committee would be to approach Bill C-83 at the committee stage with a presumption that all those who oppose this legislation are inherently wrong. That would be a denial of their right to involve themselves in this area. I think all of us, even those who oppose this, would agree that we have a right to move in this direction. We want to ensure that what we do is productive and not counter-productive.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this committee will have a very important responsibility. It must have the time to deliberate carefully. It must listen to representations from all sides. It must presume good will on the part of those who appear before the committee. By doing that and by listening as well as speaking, I think we will end up with very good progressive gun control legislation of which we can be proud, and by which those who have rights and who want to be respected as citizens of Canada will not feel aggrieved. In this way we will not create additional alienation within our society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) will be recognized when the debate resumes. It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 8, 1976