1976-03-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering the fact that today is International Women's Day and despite the fact that many years have passed since those female garment workers demonstrated for better working conditions, the economic status of women has not changed sufficiently, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare take steps to ensure that all working mothers have access to day care facilities, that the government accept the concept of equal pay for work of equal occupational status and further that the minister consider the proposal of wages for housework.


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.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with extra-judicial activities in connection with the contempt of court proceedings; both the former minister of finance and the Minister of Public Works have confirmed that they discussed those contempt of court proceedings with the judge involved. Would the minister tell the House about the substance of his conversations with the former minister of finance and the Minister of Public Works relative to the conversations those gentlemen admitted having?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, last January 30, my counsel, Mr. Gabriel Lapointe, registered an appeal from the judgment made against me by Judge Hugessen in a case of contempt of court. At the same time, he also presented and obtained a request of appeal from the sentence. This case will be heard soon by the Quebec court of appeal. Under the circumstances, I cannot and I will not make any statement related to this matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the minister tell us-and this information could in no way affect proceedings before the court- whether he invited the former minister of finance and the present Minister of Public Works to intervene in any way with the judge who was in charge of those proceedings?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have no further comments to make.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- POSSIBLE REQUEST BY CONSUMER MINISTER TO PERSONS OUTSIDE HOUSE TO INTERVENE
Charles Joseph Clark: We regret very much this refusal to put before the House information relating to the conduct of ministers of the Crown. I wonder whether I might make one final attempt. Having regard to the admission of the Minister of Public Works in this chamber-and the minister appeared to show none of the reluctance exhibited by his colleague today-that he and a great many other public-spirited citizens had spoken to the associate chief justice, could the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell us whether he asked persons outside this House to intervene on his behalf?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Leader of the Opposition is not a lawyer. If he were, he would certainly understand that when someone is involved in a matter before the courts, that someone has certain rights, and I trust that in this case the hon. member will respect them.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-REPLY OF CHIEF JUSTICE DESCHENES TO REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Could the hon. gentleman tell us what information he has received since
11566

March 8, 1976
Oral Questions
last Friday from Chief Justice Deschenes with respect to alleged contacts with justices of his court by ministers of the government, and what role, if any, Chief Justice Deschenes feels it is proper for him to take in determining the propriety of ministerial conduct in connection with the matters mentioned in Mr. Justice Mackay's letters?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: I have not received any information from the Chief Justice of the Superior Court except that he anticipated replying to my letter early next week.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF THOROUGH INVESTIGATION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Should Chief Justice Deschenes not intend to conduct interviews with members of the government, what assurances can the minister offer this House that a thorough investigation of conversations not only between members of the government and judges but between ministers themselves will take place? Can the hon. gentleman indicate what safeguards exist there for the elucidation of information for the people of Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I said on Friday, I thought it inappropriate, having regard to my view of the independence of the judiciary and the separation of the judiciary from the government, for me to make further recommendations to the government on this matter until I had had an opportunity of inviting the chief justice of the Superior Court to draw to my attention any information he deemed it appropriate for me to have in the circumstances.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since the matters contained in conversations between some of his ministers do not appear to fall within the jurisdiction or purview of Chief Justice Deschenes unless the Chief Justice were given special powers of inquiry, has the Prime Minister reconsidered his initial policy of not having a public inquiry into this matter?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that Chief Justice Deschenes of the Superior Court would not normally be called upon to look into conversations between members of my cabinet. I think that is quite proper.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REASON FOR CLAIMING CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN CONSUMER MINISTER AND MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS PRIVILEGED
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and is on the same subject. Being a lawyer, I am sure the minister will understand that those conversations will not affect the question before the court. In answer last week the Minister of Public Works indicated

that those conversations were privileged because both persons participating in the conversations, the minister and the Minister of Public Works, are both lawyers. Would the minister advise the House whether he is invoking a solicitor and client privilege with regard to those conversations as a protection?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has certainly not listened to the answer I gave to the first question of the Leader of the Opposition. I therefore invite him to refer to the remarks I made at the beginning of the question period.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- POSSIBILITY OF INQUIRY EVEN IF CHIEF JUSTICE DESCHENES FINDS NOTHING IMPROPER
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. In a letter dated February 10 the chief justice of the province of Quebec, in writing a letter to Mr. Justice Mackay, said that "your letter to the Minister of Justice is couched in terms which, were I the minister, I would find unacceptable". In view of the fact that the Chief Justice has already rendered a verdict of sorts in his letter of February 10-I realize the Minister of Justice has not ruled out a recommendation for a full inquiry-would the minister still consider a full inquiry even if the Chief Justice of Quebec finds nothing improper as a result of his investigation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that on Wednesday last I said that, as a matter of practice both in this case and in future matters, I did not intend to comment at large on correspondence passing between myself and members of the judiciary. I would advise the hon. member that the letter to which he refers from the Chief Justice of the Superior Court was not apparently written when the Chief Justice had in front of him the letter of February 20.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REQUEST FOR TABLING CORRESPONDENCE WITH CHIEF JUSTICE DESCHENES
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister in any event table the piece of correspondence that he had with the Chief Justice so that this House and the country can at least determine the specific terms of reference given to the Chief Justice in terms of his own investigation into this matter, and can judge whether the minister is conducting a full inquiry into the matter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Again, Mr. Speaker, I indicated last Wednesday that I did not think it proper to divulge correspondence between me and members of the judiciary. However, I realize this is an important matter and I will consult with the Chief Justice of the Superior Court on that point. I have indicated in the House that the purport of my request to the chief justice is to
March 8, 1976

bring to my attention, if the Chief Justice deems it appropriate, information that may be in his possession and which he considers appropriate to pass on to me.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the alleged dispute between the provincial Liberals of Quebec and the Liberals of Ottawa will provide an excellent theme for the next election in Quebec, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether Quebec Liberals have undertaken to do the same kind of favour to their federal friends and invent another artificial crisis in the event of a federal election?


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise this House if it is the policy of this government that it is satisfactory procedure for a minister of the government or a senior civil servant to speak to a judge about a matter that is before the courts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if it is in order to influence the judgment of the court the answer is no. I should add-


An hon. Member:: Go back and read your law books again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, what page and what chapter?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Is it the view of the government that it is satisfactory procedure to speak to a judge about a matter that is before the court? Is that correct?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My answer was no, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is a little-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Public Works who is not in the House, so I would waive my right and ask it later.


INSTRUCTIONS TO MINISTERS AND GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL CONCERNING COMMUNICATION WITH JUDGES
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings of the Prime Minister. As a result of the episode involving federal cabinet ministers
Oral Questions
and the judicial system, and in view of the great concern and doubt expressed by the general public that the administration of justice is being undermined, casting a detrimental reflection on the integrity of all members of this House and understandably creating embarrassment and indignation on the part of the judges, has the Prime Minister instructed all Cabinet ministers as well as senior government officials to not, under any circumstances whatsoever, contact judges directly or indirectly on matters before the courts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe if I gave those instructions they would be quite incorrect. The minister has just given some examples of necessary contact between the judiciary and the executive. I myself have had occasion to talk to judges on various matters many times-on the initiative of the judges who would phone me. The important rule is that there be no attempt to interfere or influence the course of justice, but there are naturally communications between the judiciary and the executive on such matters as, for instance, the fact that some judges have to be appointed to courts and we want to know what area the Chief Justice thinks should be strengthened, would it be civil law or commercial? There are many factors between the ministers and the judiciary. The important rule is that it not be made with an attempt to influence the course of a trial.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As a result of this fiasco what are the plans of the Prime Minister to allay the fears of Canadians, because nothing he has said up to the present time has accomplished that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps what we said today will accomplish that. I shall ask the hon. member to report tomorrow on what the Canadian public is thinking.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if I might draw the attention of the House in another direction I should like to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister on his successful escape from the second battle of Quebec with not too many visible wounds. I should like to ask him who speaks for the government on the question of bringing back the constitution to Canada-the Minister of National Health and Welfare who said in his inimitable way that the Prime Minister was kibbitzing or joshing or the right hon. gentleman who, from what I saw of him on television for at least the benefit of English Canada, did lash himself into an awful rage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question was too serious, but if I could be allowed to deal-


An hon. Member:: Oh yes it is.


An hon. Member:: Ask the premier.
21419-4 OVi

March 8, 1976
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, three were not two battles of Quebec, there were three. Apart from mine there was one in 1759 and one in 1760.


Charles Joseph Clark: You did better in that period.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to bringing the constitution back to Canada does the right hon. gentleman intend to go to Buckingham Palace by his little self and bring it back here or does he intend-


Mr. Paproski:: Bring it back on a bicycle.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand that when we talk about the patriation of the constitution it really does not mean putting statutes in a little satchel and bringing them back. If I can use layman's language it means to ask the United Kingdom to deprive itself of the right it has of making laws for Canada. This was done by the Statute of Westminster for the other Dominions. It was not done for Canada. All we want now is for the United Kingdom, through its proper parliamentary channels, to renounce that right. We think all Canadians would be happy if we put an end to this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I have one final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the right hon. gentleman come to this House and make a statement telling us exactly what he intends to do so we will all have the information and be able to do something about it as well.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, apparently the station to which the hon. member listened in Alberta did not carry the full story. It might be that if the hon. members wants me to do it right here I could just re-read what I said as recorded in Hansard of October 1974. If he would look it up he would see what I said then.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question which is directed to the Prime Minister is based on the grave concern of thousands of Canadians that Canada through its export policy is willfully and knowingly contributing to the increasing likelihood of a world nuclear catastrophe. Given the fact that India has already exploded a nuclear device in direct contravention of an earlier agreement with Canada and further that India still refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, what prompted the government to re-open negotiations with India for a resumption of nuclear assistance to that country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the discussions going on with India are precisely to get India to accept the safeguards which we think are essential now that they have exploded an atomic device. We are not re-opening discussions with them. We are

pursuing the discussion began with them after that explosion of some one and one-half to two years ago, after which we cut off technical aid to India. We said we would not resume it until we have reached a satisfactory conclusion. It is to that that the discussions are directed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, given the horrifying implications for disaster that these negotiations present and because of conflicting reports that have emanated from New Delhi as to the agreements reached over the weekend, will the Prime Minister say what understanding was arrived at and also what conditions Canada is demanding that India meet before nuclear assistance is resumed. Have we for instance made it a condition that India sign and ratify the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the reports of the discussions and negotiations which were going on in India last week and I believe over the weekend. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will answer when he is back in the House.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister give this House the assurance today that the terms of any accord between Canada and India will be tabled in the House for debate before it is ratified.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is not the parliamentary custom.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister which perhaps is supplementary to the matter raised by the hon. member for Peace River. The Prime Minister is quoted as having said that if it is not possible to secure agreement at a federal-provincial conference to bring the constitution and its amending process fully under Canadian control there will be unilateral action by the federal government. In view of the fact that any proposal to amend the Canadian constitution is a very important matter and clearly within the jurisdiction of parliament as distinct ftom the government as such, will the Prime Minister undertake that before any action is sought in the United Kingdom on this issue Parliament as a whole will be fully consulted and its full approval sought.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give that undertaking. I would like to make a slight correction to the premise which is based perhaps on an erroneous report. I said we would give consideration to acting unilaterally. I quite agree with the hon. member that if that course has to be taken, it would have to be done of course by resolution of both chambers of parliament.
March 8, 1976


POSSIBILITY OF NEW AMENDING FORMULA AT TIME CONSTITUTION BROUGHT TO CANADA
Francis Andrew Brewin: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether in any proposal to bring back the constitution from Great Britain by means of a federal unilateral action a new amending formula will be substituted for the present power of the parliament of the United Kingdom in such a manner as to protect and entrench the basic language and civil rights within the provinces and to ensure that no further amendments would be made without at least some reasonable consensus of the provinces on all changes affecting provincial legislative powers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can
assure the hon. member that it would not be the intention of the government to see in Canada a constitution which could be amended unilaterally by the federal government once it is back. I think I should make that quite clear, and I believe that is the essence of the question of the hon. member. But I would go further and say that there is no intention on the part of the government to ask parliament by joint resolution to even contemplate such limited action without further consultation with the provinces.
As I indicated in January of this year, I believe, negotiations had been going on for almost a year with the various provinces in the hope that we would find agreement on a way to amend the constitution and repatriate it. I think that we are now about to reach the conclusion that it is unlikely that we will get unanimous agreement. My next step would be to report to all the provinces on the status of the discussions as we see them now. I would just add what I said in my statement on Friday night, and it seemed to have escaped attention. I said that I did not despair of even Quebec agreeing to that. I even said that I hoped there would be unanimous agreement, and we still hope for it. But at this stage I will contact all premiers and report to them on the status of the negotiations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with surplus milk powder in Canada. In view of the fact that several world relief organizations, including Food for the Hungry, have attempted to buy surplus powdered milk and have experienced the usual bureaucratic runaround ending back with CIDA, I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House whether or not the government of Canada would make the same arrangement as did the Netherlands, that is that upon purchase by world relief organizations the milk would be delivered free anywhere in the world.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and inform the minister.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE STUDY OF POLICY ON NUCLEAR SALES
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and it goes back to the question raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. In answer to the last question asked by the hon. lady, the Prime Minister said it was not the custom of the House to report to the House on international agreements before they are signed. Bearing in mind that that is in opposition to the policy announced by his predecessor twice removed, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, may I ask the Prime Minister now, because of the public confusion over who is making the policy on nuclear sales for this government-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Douglas Roche: -whether it is a representative of the Prime Minister's office or representatives of the Department of External Affairs, will the Prime Minister make an immediate reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to review the decision making process on this subject which is of extreme importance to world safety?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question seems to have many parts. The delegation in India engaged in these negotiations is there of course with the authorization of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They are his appointees and they are acting in complete agreement and in co-operation with the high commissioner in India. As to the other reference, I do not know what my predecessor twice removed did. I was just quoting what has been current practice since I have been in parliament. I will try to establish contact with the Right Hon. Mackenzie King and report to the House.


An hon. Member:: How about Ivan Head?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MOZAMBIQUE-CLOSING OF BORDER WITH RHODESIA- REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responding for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Subsequent to the declaration by Mozambique closing the border with Rhodesia, which put the country on a war footing, and following reports of increased shipments of Soviet supplied armaments reaching Mozambique, is the minister able to give any report to the House concerning this immediate threat to world peace?


Mitchell William Sharp: We do not have any direct contacts which would enable us to confirm or otherwise these reports. However, we do share the general anxiety about the situation in southern Africa, and I think it reinforces the view we have had that there should be no intervention by outside powers in that part of the world.


Howard Earl Johnston: Has Canada made any commitment, either individually or with other countries, to aid in com-

March 8, 1976
Oral Questions
pensating Mozambique in any way for losses consequent on the closing of its border with Rhodesia?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member will recall that Canada, like other members of the Commonwealth, had given an undertaking to discuss the situation, and when we have made official contacts with the government of Mozambique we will find out whether there is some way in which we could help which would promote peace and not war.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration my question is directed to the jocular Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Steven Badger of Australia has been in Canada and attending school here for two and a half years and that he is by reputation one of the world's finest swimmers and that he has just been refused landed immigrant status in Canada, this refusal coming just after it was too late to qualify for his own Olympic team in Australia and he has now been denied the opportunity to swim either for Canada or for Australia, will the Prime Minister urge a careful review of Mr. Badger's application in order that he may represent us at the Olympics?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly take notice of the question, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware of the situation. I will refer it to the minister for study.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Would he indicate whether he was consulted prior to the Bank of Canada raising the bank rate to an historical high and, if so, did he agree that the move should be made? Would he also advise what impact the raising of the bank rate will have on our mortgage interest rates and on the cost of borrowing for the average Canadian?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: The
answer to the first part of the question is yes. Of course, it would be difficult to make a total estimate in response to the second part.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the national policy of high interest rates, would the minister indicate if he has been in touch with the banking institutions and has he asked that they cushion the impact of this high rate for homeowners and those requiring personal financing in the country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With respect to residential lending policies the hon. member will be familiar with the

policies put forward by my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with respect to favourable interest rates for residential accommodation. Of course, one of the purposes of the rate increase is to further control the rate of increase of the money supply, and in that sense it would naturally have an effect on the lending policies of the chartered banks.


RATIONALE FOR LOANS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AT LOW
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the surprisingly high interest rate structure in this country, would the Prime Minister indicate the rationale of the government in extending lines of credit of $500 million to Russia, $500 million to Poland and $100 million to Cuba at interest rates of approximately 7 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand that such lines of credit are extended in order to stimulate Canadian external trade and therefore to create employment in Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why just to the communist nations?


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). The minister has announced that the Gulf of St. Lawrence will be closed to all vessels fishing for red fish effective noon, March 6, until midnight, April 30. Since this action was taken on the recommendations of the minister's scientists, would he indicate whether a study has been conducted with regard to the intermingling of red fish stocks from our offshore banks with stocks in the gulf? If so, when was this study made, and what is the percentage of intermingling between these two stocks? At the same time would the minister indicate whether there was an impact analysis of the effect of this action on Nova Scotia and Newfoundland?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to have some detailed data on the statistics and research which has been done, but certainly the scientists knew in 1973 that the gulf stock would be depleted and the spawning stock would have been reached by late 1975 and 1976. Their prediction is turning out to be accurate. I will report in more detail to the hon. member.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Since the Spanish pair trawlers and the Faroe Island trawlers are more destructive to our fisheries than to those of any other nation, by throwing back into the sea hundreds of thousands of pounds of red fish, flounder, yellowtail and any other fish caught in their trawls while they are fishing for cod, is this the type of
March 8, 1976

conservation policy the minister is proposing for Canadian fishermen, not allowing them to catch more than 5,000 pounds of red fish per trip, or is this regulation subject to revision when our fishermen start throwing their excess red fish catches back into the sea?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am afraid I cannot go along with the blanket condemnation of the hon. member. The foreign fleets which are fishing in the gulf are there as part of the phase out agreement. Three out of four will be phased out this year. Twelve of these vessels were boarded by our officials. There was no evidence of a big catch of red fish. They are not fishing for red fish. They do catch some, incidentally. The industry should regulate itself in the gulf, as it has off Nova Scotia, to stop discarding haddock and abide by the regulations which we put into effect with their co-operation and their agreement.


TRANSPORT
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Because of the importance to the economy of marine ferry service on the east coast and the need for sufficient lead time for the companies involved to be properly organized for the heavy summer,season, can the minister say when he will be in a position to tell us what fare rate increases will be permitted and whether these fare rate increases are expected to make up entirely for the severe cut in subsidies which has been made by the Treasury Board, especially with regard to the Northumberland ferry service?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the amount which is hoped to be cut, and which is indicated in the restraint program, is a total of $5 million. This will be spread over the various ferry services in the region. I expect a decision with regard to the specifics to be made quite soon, but some further consultations with the provincial government and with members of parliament are going on at the present time.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Could the minister inform the House if the contract for the Lockheed LRPA clearly set out the terms and amounts of the monthly and milestone payments which were to be paid by the Canadian government to Lockheed during the life of the contract?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the contract has not been signed yet, therefore it has not come into effect.
Oral Questions


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I am sure that must be the most well known fact in the country, but it has nothing to do with the question I asked the minister. I asked if the contract contained a schedule of monthly and milestone payments. This is the original contract which has been in the minister's possession for several months. Did it not contain a schedule saying when the money was to be paid by Canada to Lockheed?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it in any other way. Really, I cannot explain more simply what is going on: the contract has not been signed, and therefore is not in force; we cannot therefore talk about a binding contract between the two parties.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that the government has previously interfered in the marketplace when necessary with respect to the availability of fertilizer to farmers, and in view of some concern by fertilizer suppliers that later in the spring this year there could be a problem with transportation and delivery because of too much having to be delivered at one period of time, what advice does the minister have at the present time for farmers to assure that they will have fertilizer when they need it in the spring?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, our publications have advised farmers to buy their fertilizer early, contrary to that report.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Because it has been reported that the minister has refused to speak to the fertilizer companies, does he not think the present situation might be rectified if he could convince the fertilizer manufacturers and distributors to offer a larger discount to farmers for accepting early deliveries, or is that too simple a situation for the minister's department to figure out?


Eugene Whelan: It would be a frosty Friday when this minister would refuse to speak to them if he was asked. I was not asked to speak this year. I was asked to be present, but I was not asked to be the main speaker. The main speaker this year was Premier Blakeney from Saskatchewan.


OIL-EFFECT OF POSSIBLE TAKEOVER OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD BY PETRO-CANADA ON SYNCRUDE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the proposed take-

March 8, 1976
Oral Questions
over of the Canadian assets of the Atlantic Richfield Corporation of the United States by Petro-Canada. In view of the fact that the main reason for the delay in signing the Syncrude agreement arose from the difficulty of acquiring Atlantic Richfield's permits and leases in the Athabasca oil sands, will the acquisition of Atlantic Richfield's Canadian assets, resolve the difficulties with respect to the Syncrude consortium, and in the event that this proposed takeover is completed, how soon after that does the minister envisage the signing of the Syncrude agreement?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of different questions there. Let me try to deal with each of them.
The first point I wish to make is that the question of the leases and the possible take over by Petro-Canada of ARCAN are unrelated events. The second point has to do with the Syncrude agreement itself and when it might be signed. That is going to depend very much on what we are able to negotiate with the province of Alberta. At the present time we have not been able to reach an agreement on a reasonable rate of return on the pipelines and utilities. We have proposed that we should put this issue out to arbitration. I believe the province of Ontario and the private sector companies would support that particular approach, but that is the log jam at the present time.
I must also say that we have not yet concluded, although I am hopeful we will reach, an agreement on the outstanding leases.


POSSIBILITY PETRO-CANADA WILL NEED ADDITIONAL CAPITAL TO FINANCE TAKEOVER OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that only some $10 million has been allocated for Petro-Canada in this fiscal year, in the event that Petro-Canada does acquire the Canadian assets of Atlantic Richfield, what amount of money is going to be made available to the national petroleum corporation for working capital in addition to the purchase price which at the present time is being thought of in terms of some $400 million? Will additional funds be made available to Petro-Canada so that it can operate this company in the event that the purchase is negotiated?


Alastair William Gillespie: Petro-Canada has retained consultants to advise it on the reasonable value of assets of ARCAN. The major part of these assets are oil and natural gas producing assets. It is by no means certain that ARCAN and Petro-Canada will arrive at a mutually agreed figure for the take-over of those assets. If they do, the financing plan by Petro-Canada for the take-over will have to be submitted to the government. It is possible that a large proportion of those assets will be financed without government assistance.


ELECTIONS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the Prime Minister's comments at the end of the year about the need for changes in society, will he assure the House and the Canadian people that he and the government still feel that one of the fundamental rights in our democratic society is this: that a properly accredited electorate in any constituency in Canada is entitled to representation by elected officials in the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Wyatt Dick: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why is it that after Gerard Pelletier, the cabinet minister, resigned to become ambassador in Paris the Prime Minister called a by-election within 60 days, whereas in the case of the vacancy in St. John's West the by-election was not called until the last moment, thus depriving the people of that area representation in the House of Commons for over one year? Will the Prime Minister not announce an earlier date for the by-election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


BURIAL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AT EAST BRAINTREE, MANITOBA-REASON FOR CHOICE OF SITE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? Some days ago I asked the minister for information concerning the burial site of radioactive material at East Braintree, Manitoba. The burial site was completed under the auspices of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Manitoba Cancer Research Foundation, without the express knowledge of the Atomic Energy Control Board. Has the minister been able to check further? Has he information other than that he sent me in letter form? Will those people who, without permission from the Atomic Energy Control Board, chose the site be questioned on why the site was chosen and why the regulations of the AECB were not followed in the choice of the site?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe satisfactory discussions have taken place between AECB and the provincial government agencies involved.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect, although those discussions might be acceptable to the two bodies concerned, the people of my riding are also deeply concerned. I ask the minister, again, will he make a statement on motions or some other occasion informing the
March 8, 1976

constituents of Provencher that eastern Manitoba is not becoming a burial site for radioactive material?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the hon. member would use the information I provided to him by letter he would be able to assure his constituents, as I will assure them right now, that there is no danger to health.


STUDY OF FUNDY TIDAL POWER-DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister tell the House when the five phase study of Fundy Tidal Power recommended over a year ago will commence? Will the minister consider placing these studies under the over-all direction of DREE which has a physical presence in the area and can study and promote a simultaneous, compatible industrial development in the region?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge that work is already under way and is being supported on a 50-50 basis by the federal government and the two provinces concerned, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The federal government has put up $1.5 million, payable over two years.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns safeguards affecting India. Is it, or will it be, a condition of any agreement that spent fuel shall be returned to Canada for reprocessing, to ensure that Canadian nuclear material will not be used to produce further nuclear explosions in India and to ensure environmentally sound standards of disposal and storage of nuclear wastes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that precisely, is one of the questions being discussed. As I indicated earlier, I have not received the report.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment? As the minister stated that he advised the government regarding the return and reprocessing of nuclear waste from reactors sold abroad, has the minister advised the government on the environmental aspects of nuclear waste disposal and storage, as applied to agreements currently being discussed with India?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question ought to be directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the recent damage experienced by the tender fruit industry, particularly in the counties of Kent, Elgin and Norfolk, following the ice storm last week. As early estimates indicate that at least 50 per cent of the trees have been destroyed, what measures has the minister taken to assist the industry, following that disaster?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the matter was brought to my attention by the president of the Canadian federation just this weekend. The usual procedure is to assess the damage, which is very great, especially to cherry and peach trees, and report to the province. If the province sees fit and makes further representations to the federal government, we will certainly give the matter consideration.


COMMUNICATION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications and arises from delays in bringing cable television to the residents of Dalhousie. What action might the minister take to have private television people from CKCW at Moncton and Saint John, New Brunswick, complete the installation of equipment and bring in 100 per cent CBC programming to northern New Brunswick?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of various people's access to CBC programs is the responsibility of the Secretary of State; I therefore feel that the question should be addressed to him. But with regard to possible applications for cable service in that area, I imagine the CRTC will, eventually, hold hearings in the course of studying such applications.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD JUSTIFICATION FOR EXPENDITURES OF ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. As the budget for the Anti-Inflation Board administrator is for $298,000 for three months, almost $100,000 a month, and as the administrator has dealt with only one

March 8, 1976
Oral Questions
request made by the Anti-Inflation Board, how does the minister justify this large expenditure?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that when the hon. member studies the supplementary estimates he will see that the expenditures were considerably less than $100,000. We should commend the administrator for the manner in which he is operating his office. His funding will be substantially less than $100,000 a month.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. When will an announcement be made regarding a new policy for car rental locations at Canadian airports?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, discussions with the interested participants in the industry are going well. I plan to formulate new proposals and conclusions on the basis of those discussions but cannot give the hon. member a date.


LOSS OF RESEARCH SCIENTISTS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and relates to funding for medical research. On March 6, 1976, the Stratford Beacon Herald, in an article headlined "Canada losing medical brain through lack of federal fund" reported the loss of medical research scientists to the United States, among whom is a researcher at the University of Toronto, Dr. Irving Fox. The physician in chief at the Toronto General Hospital and chairman of the university's department of medicine, Dr. Charles Hollenberg, was commenting on the loss of Dr. Irving Fox, an arthritis researcher, to the United States, because of lack of equipment and funding in Canada. Is the minister concerned about Dr. Hollenberg's comment, and the fact that people are leaving Canada because of the attraction of greater funds and better equipment elsewhere?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. Still, there is always a flow of researchers between Canada and the United States.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the build up of milk products in Canada, the dairy industry lending itself to supply-management, can the minister tell the House what went wrong in the decision-making process of the Canadian Dairy Commission, or is the present situation beyond the control of that federal authority?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that usually has to be considered is the excellent weather conditions, and the fact we are dealing with a biological entity called a cow. They respond to conditions. Last year they over-responded. In addition, world conditions compounded the situation with 1,600,000 tons of surplus skim milk powder. This took away some of the market from Canadian producers. It again points out the efficiency of Canadian dairy producers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, last week I tabled a letter I had sent to the Prime Minister; today I should like to complete the exchange of correspondence by tabling the other letter I received from Justice Kenneth Mackay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Standing Orders permit the tabling of documents that relate to the administrative competence of the minister. It is evident that this document is sought by the House but it is not strictly within the minister's departmental competence. I wonder, therefore, if the House gives consent so that the document might be tabled.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in my questioning earlier today, I think I inadvertently suggested that the Minister of Public Works and the former minister of finance confirmed that they had conversations with the judge in the case. Of course, what they confirmed was conversations with their colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I simply want the record to be clear as I was in error in my original remark.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the question period the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs refused to answer questions relating to his alleged requests of one of his colleagues and one of his former colleagues to intervene on his behalf with a judge dealing with contempt of court proceedings. He claimed, as I understood it, the privilege of not answering to the high

court of parliament because the contempt of court proceedings were still before the courts.
My point of order is that this is a spurious and unjustifiable claim. It is true that if a criminal proceeding is pending and may be prejudicially affected by a discussion in parliament, that discussion may well be out of order. However, proceeding by way of contempt of court is not a criminal proceeding. It is a civil proceeding. Moreover, it arises out of statements made by the minister at an earlier date. Discussion in parliament of the later attempt to secure intervention does not in any way affect the position of the appellate courts in the previous issue. Therefore, the minister has refused to answer to this parliament questions that are totally relevant, by claiming a privilege that is non-existent.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood raises a point of order. Of course, the hon. member understands there is no obligation upon any minister to answer any question. Whatever reason the minister may give for refusing to answer may be his reason. The fact is the minister may be giving an explanation. He does not have to lean upon any kind of point of order or privilege not to answer a question. He is, in fact, under no obligation to answer the question. While I take the hon. member's representation as a sincere one, I cannot find that it is an established or well taken point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of that comment. Hon. members should appreciate that the long-standing rule in relation to comments on cases before the courts applies to both criminal and civil cases.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: It leads to a general rule of restraint that should lead members of parliament not to engage in debate here when a matter is before the courts in any way which can lead to any implication of impact or effect upon it. That rule is broader. I do not want to go further than that. While there are double grounds for the minister's position, it should be known there is that restraint that is appropriate in this House.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, the minister has seen fit to interject his opinion I presume as a former minister of justice. There is a responsibility on every member of parliament not to become involved in discussions in this House in so far as something that is before the courts is concerned. There is also a very heavy obligation on the part of every member of this House not to interfere with any judge who is hearing any case involving a person who happens to be a member of this House, or any other individual in this nation, when the judge is in a position to make a decision in that instance. That has been going on, and it is a well-known fact.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: It is time the people of this nation were aware of that. Members of parliament should not interfere with judges.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Anti-Inflation Board


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the spurious argument that the minister just made was sticking in my throat and I could not stand it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: I wish to state, further, that in the 18 years I have been a member of this House I have never had an occasion where I felt justified in telephoning any judge in any part of this country, in any court, about any constituent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: That goes for all the rest of us on this side.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Notwithstanding the considerable contributions from both sides of the House in addition to the point originally raised by the hon. member for Greenwood, although it is a very interesting and important matter for discussion and debate with regard to the standard of conduct respecting these things, the fact is it does not constitute any reference to the privileges of members of this House. It does not constitute a point of order. Rather than get into a debate on this matter, which is clearly not permitted under our rules, the subject having been equally contributed to on both sides we will consider the matter closed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I make reference to the point made by the Minister of Transport? At a meeting of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections some months ago we had the benefit of advice from parliamentary counsel who looked into all the precedents and made it absolutely clear that criminal and civil proceedings were not to be lumped together. In civil proceedings there is no plea of privilege or sub judice that can be raised unless the matter is exactly an issue before the courts and unless it is directed to influencing that decision. I suggest to the minister that before he gets up to volunteer advice he should find out the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of the Anti-Inflation Board's recommendations with regard to association bargaining in the construction, grain handing, longshoring, shipping and trucking industries.

March 8, 1976
External Affairs and National Defence [Translation]


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES RESTRAINT ACT
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-87 entitled: "An Act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures."


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

Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-88, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2).


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

Mitchell William Sharp: That members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to travel to Washington, D.C., from March 10, 1976, to March 12, 1976, in relation to the committee's order of reference in connection with international development and that the necessary support staff do accompany them.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day. I understand there is some disposition on the part of the members of the House to dispose of the matter without debate. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the opportunity to bring up a vital question during the question period, and I wonder if this might be the appropriate time to express the great concern which has been felt in connection with the seal hunt which is due to take place in a few days. Information has become available that the green dye to be used may be harmful to the animals, and I should like to ask the minister whether he would agree to make a statement with regard to action which might be taken in the light of this evidence. In view of the fact that it could be harmful to the lives of people, and in view of the fact that instructions are being issued and should be gazetted

tomorrow, perhaps the House might be made aware of them by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe has raised a point of order. The hon. Minister of State responsible for fisheries.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am in your hands as to the regularity or otherwise of this procedure. I intended to address myself to this issue before the fisheries committee on Thursday morning, I believe. I am certainly ready to indicate to the hon. member what the order in council contains.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the first opportunity might be taken to deal with this matter. It might present itself during the question period tomorrow, or in the form of a statement by the minister tomorrow.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 3,304, 3,901, 3,948, 3,973, 4,033, 4,071, 4,075 and 4,123.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the Minister of Finance aware of the statements in the press attributed to the President of Panarctic Oil during the week of October 20 to 24, 1975 indicating the possibility that Panarctic Oil will purchase three Scandinavian crude oil tankers for transport of Arctic oil to market should that be feasible?
2.	Is the Minister aware of the extent of participation in Panarctic Oil by the government and its agents and, if so, to what extent is this participation?
3.	Has the Minister examined the implications of going outside Canada for such vessels in terms of the long-term viability and health of the Canadian ship-building industry and trade balance and (a) if so, what conclusions have been reached (b) if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, citation 171(x).


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	What were the grain demurrage charges for the period October 1974 to October 1975?
2.	For the same period, what were the charges for (a) West Coast ports (b) Great Lakes ports?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: In so far as the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: 1.
March 8, 1976

Demurrage paid by the Canadian Wheat Board in the period October, 1974 to October, 1975 totalled $14,234,858.47.
2. (a) West Coast ports, $13,488,056.79; (b) Eastern ports, $746,801.68. Eastern ports include the St. Lawrence and maritime ports. No demurrage is claimable with respect to the Great Lake ports.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Since its inception, has the Department of Transport financed any projects in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, how many?
2.	In each case, what was the (a) name of the project (b) amount granted (c) year the project began (d) year the project was completed?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Records of projects financed by Transport Canada since its inception are not complete. To provide an accurate reply for the years for which records are available would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the accounts of every administration. However, available records show that since fiscal year 1966/67 this department has not financed any project in excess of $50,000 in the constituency of Champlain.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the Department of Transport made or requested a physical inventory of the facilities available at the Harmon Airport in Stephen-ville, Newfoundland, particularly as it concerns runways and underground facilities for fuel storage or its strategic location as it relates to international landing requirements and (a) if so, what were the findings (b) if not, has any consideration been given to assessing the physical facilities available at little or no cost to Canada?
2.	Is DOT aware of the strategic location of the Harmon Airport and the physical facilities available in its determination of declaring capacity available to international or alternate stopovers?
3.	What is the position of the Stephenville Airport in provision by DOT of international flight alternatives to Canada?
4.	In regard to the government's effort to practice restraint in spending under DOT is any consideration being given to utilize the available facilities left to deteriorate at the Harmon Airport in Stephenville and, if not, for what reason?
5.	What is Canada's position as it relates to giving landing rights to international airlines to utilize the availability of Harmon base?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Transport Canada maintains a complete physical inventory of facilities which exist at Stephenville airport. When the airport was an active airbase, two runways were in service. However, present requirements are satisfied with one 10,000 foot runway, thus the other runway is not maintained. Transport Canada has underground fuel storage tanks at Stephenville airport with a capacity of one million gallons which are not used. Private fuel companies own fuel tanks at the airport which have a capacity of 29,700 gallons and are in use.
2, 3 and 5. Stephenville airport is strategically located in relation to some Trans-Atlantic air routes and is currently being used as an alternate to Gander for those aircraft engaged in the Trans Oceanic Plane Stop Program
Order Paper Questions
(TOPS). Apart from the TOPS program, air carriers engaged in international operations have not identified the need for Stephenville as a regular or alternate international airport.
4. At the time that the United States Air Force made the decision to close the base, Transport Canada identified those facilities which were required for civil operations. All other facilities and buildings in this area, which were formerly the property of U.S.A.F., were brought under the administration of the Harmon Corporation. Transport Canada does not see any further requirement for the use of facilities or buildings in excess of those presently in use.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Will the government give consideration to increasing up to $500 the $100 tax write-off for purchase of small tools as suggested at the Western Agricultural Conference held in Regina in January 1976?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: At present tools costing less than $100 are eligible for inclusion in Class 12 of the capital cost allowance regulations to the Income Tax Act which provides for an annual write-off of 100 per cent. In addition, under Part XVII of the regulations, dealing with capital cost allowance for taxpayers with income from farming and fishing, the same 100 per cent write-off is provided for tools acquired before 1972 and costing less than $100. The effect of these provisions is to allow a full deduction for tax purposes of the capital cost of such tools in the year of purchase. The $100 limit referred to above has been in effect since it was increased to this amount from $50 in 1961. Suggestions that this limit again be raised are presently under consideration.


Mr. Marshall: What action was taken by Lifeboat Base CG 108 in Newfoundland in the search for two seal hunters, Mr. Ronald Boyd and Mr. Eric Stride who were lost out of Moreton's Harbour, Newfoundland?


Ralph Goodale: 1. The Canadian Coast Guard Lifeboat 108, based at Twillingate, Newfoundland, is a 44 foot boat and is not capable of operating in ice of more than a few inches in thickness. The vessel was laid up on January 21, 1976 because of severe ice conditions in her area of operation and a Notice to Mariners was issued to inform all concerned. Because of her laid up condition, Coast Guard 108 was not called upon to search for the two seal hunters out of Moreton's Harbour. The Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Canadian Armed Forces aircraft carried out the search assisted, during favourable weather conditions, by a small vessel from the local area.

March 8, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Has the Department of Finance granted any funds in the Constituency of Roberval under the Winter Capital Projects Fund and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) amount granted (b) nature of the project (c) municipality involved since the beginning of the grants up to and including 1975?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: With regard to Winter Capital Projects Fund loans in the constituency of Roberval the following details applied as of February 17, 1976:
Municipality
Nature of Project
Loan
Approved
St. Felicien	Construct Outdoor Track Facilities	$469,251St. Felicien	Excavate Basement of Community Centre	34,324St. Felicien	Cultural Pavillion Improvements	7,000St. Felicien	Sports Area Renovation	21,000St. Felicien	Sports Pavillion Alterations	21,125St. Felicien	Construct Municipal Camping Site	296,326Mistassini	Construction of Waste Disposal Site	1,630Mistassini	Construction of Sidewalk	9,570Mistassini	Construction of Water and Sewer Mains	39,355Normandin	Construct Ice-Making Plant	95,000St. Prime	Construct Town Hall and Fire Station	133,742
Chibougamou
Park	Road Construction	880,000


Mr. Robinson: Is any consideration being given by the government to gearing our price structure and wage increases to the increase in the gross national product?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: No. A desirable price structure is one which adequately reflects the relative supplies and demands for the various goods and services in the economy. Wage increases should reflect, among other things, the growth in labour productivity. These economic aims would not be achieved by gearing the price structure and wage increases to the increase in gross national product.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violence and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to commence the debate today on this major legislative initiative of the government's peace and security program. In doing so, I wish to express my appreciation to the parties opposite for their co-operation through their House leaders and official spokesmen in having the bill brought forward two weeks after its introduction.
The criminal justice system is both a powerful and a delicate instrument for achieving justice and order. In adjusting the policies underlying it we have exercised great care to guard the continued proper balance between the system's two imperatives: the adequate protection of the safety and security of the law-abiding, and the legal rights and dignity of those charged with offences. When the community shares genuine and serious concerns about the adequacy of protection against those who pose a real and present threat to peace of mind and security of person, we have a duty to take firm and effective measures in response to these real concerns. But the responses must also be measured, not abrogating individual rights or other real safeguards. The measures I shall outline demonstrate a consciousness of the importance of this balance.
No role which falls to me as Minister of Justice is more important than that which bears upon the nature, character and quality of criminal justice throughout Canada. In performing this role, 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.
None is, or can be, an absolute. They form a collectivity and in a given situation some values will merit greater weight than others. This is essential to the maintenance of a stable and viable society. The important thing is to ensure that none is ever undermined or discarded. None has been so treated in the peace and security measures.
Second, I must be sure that criminal justice policies are properly responsive to real public concerns. While basic values remain secure, society changes. New or different patterns of anti-social conduct emerge and old ones become more serious. Their related threats to the law-abiding give
March 8, 1976

rise to deep concerns among the citizens about their continued security and tranquillity. I, as Minister of Justice, we as a government and as members of parliament have a responsibility to be fully aware of these problems and concerns. We must be prepared to bring forth and debate policies which are properly responsive to them. I say "properly" because criminal justice policies establish the moral tone of our society and must therefore be measured and reasoned responses.
Today, few would dispute that many people are deeply and genuinely concerned about the increasing incidence of criminal violence, the growing penetration of organized criminals in our midst, the number of accused or convicted offenders on the streets committing further crimes, and the difficulties the justice system is experiencing in coping with criminal activity.
Third, Mr. Speaker, in bringing forth criminal justice policies it is incumbent upon me, as Minister of Justice, to ensure that they will be effective. The system must be equipped with the tools and means necessary to achieve the goals.
Specifically, the community, the police, the prosecutors, the courts and the correction services must have the capabilities to prevent, detect, apprehend, prosecute, incarcerate, control and rehabilitate the offenders. The sanctions must be strong enough to punish and deter. The most dangerous offenders must be effectively separated from society, for its protection.
All citizens must be given a real sense of personal responsibility in their own conduct, for ensuring their own safety and security. Citizens cannot assume that the peace of their community is none of their business, that it is something they can just push off on to the police and the politicians, and that their only contribution is to complain when things go wrong. In doing all of these things, it remains that the policies must build in proper safeguards to secure the rights of the individual, which has been the hallmark of the criminal justice system in Anglo-American jurisprudence.
The measures before the House, to which I will now turn, are designed to provide the tools and means to achieve these goals. The central objective of Bill C-83, the government's peace and security program, can be simply stated. It is to counter rising violence in our society without resort to violence itself in response, this to the end that law-abiding citizens will know a greater degree of security and safety while still preserving that critical balance in the scales of justice. This bill contains a number of important measures directed to that objective which will adapt our criminal justice system to respond in a more effective yet just way to the rising incidence of crime in Canada, particularly that of a violent or organized nature.
In addition to these legislative measures being prepared, there is a series of important administrative measures that have been announced and described by my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), and which will be debated further by him in this House, relating to significant improvements in the police, parole and penitentiary services and facilities.
Measures Against Crime
There is also, of course, a second legislative measure, Bill C-84, which is not yet under debate, dealing with the penalties for murder. Since it will be the subject of subsequent debate in this chamber, I shall not, of course, debate it this afternoon but confine myself to simply noting that fact. That bill is but one of several measures in the program directed toward imposing strong and effective, but non-violent, penalties and controls for those who engage in serious acts of personal violence, including the ultimate violence of murder.
With regard to the new provisions and principles of Bill C-83, I should like, if I may, to discuss those provisions relating to gun control. The growing number of crimes, deaths and accidents involving the use of firearms is a very proper concern of citizens, one fully shared by the government and one that I trust this House will share. Every year sees a further increase in gun-related murders, robberies, suicides and accidents in Canada. In 1974, nearly 1,500 persons died of gunshot wounds, an increase of 30 per cent over the 1970 number. Firearms were used in one-half of Canada's murders and in at least one-third of the 15,000 robberies. They also account for over one-third of the annual suicides and many accidental deaths. No count is known of the number of non-fatal accidents caused by firearms.
These are clearly statistics that call for measures that will lead to a curtailment of the incidence of gun-related violence both of a criminal and non-criminal nature, while at the same time avoiding undue interference with legitimate ownership and use of common firearms. The government's policy on the control of firearms as set out in this bill is designed to achieve this goal through a series of reasoned legislative and administrative measures based upon the following principles: increased criminal liability for misuse of weapons: increased standards of care for ownership and use of weapons; decreased availability of firearms and ammunition; screening for fitness to possess and use firearms; increased police powers to seize weapons in dangerous situations; increased awareness of the dangers of firearms abuse. The measures are of a comprehensive nature, directed both to those who would use guns for criminal purposes and to others who in using them for legitimate ends must learn to do so with greater respect and care.
For those who use firearms as tools of their criminal trade, no registration or licensing system will effectively curb continued access to and use of weapons. For such criminals the real sanction is and must be denunciatory sentences. To this end, the maximum penalties for unlawful possession or use of ordinary as well as restricted and prohibited weapons are being substantially increased. In addition, any person henceforth convicted of using an offensive weapon while committing an indictable offence will receive a prison term above and beyond that for the indictable offence itself. That is to say, there will be a mandatory minimum sentence in those cases.
For citizens who wish to own or use common firearms for legitimate purposes, a number of control systems were considered closely by the government: total prohibition, firearms' depositories, gun registration and possessor licensing. They were the subject of a full study carried out by Dean Friedland for the government during 1975. Of these,

March 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
the one that is the only balanced and reasonable approach to the problem of controlling misuse of firearms is a system of licensing persons who possess guns. This system places primary emphasis on the proposition that no person should be entitled to possess or use a firearm unless he can establish his fitness and responsibility to do so. In other words, ownership and use of firearms should not be a right, but a privilege.
The system of licensing will be a simple and flexible yet effective system, with necessary safeguards to ensure that no one will be unfairly deprived of the privilege to secure a licence for legitimate purposes. Here, Mr. Speaker, I refer particularly to the sports hunter, the target shooter and, indeed, the northern family for whom hunting is a way and a means of life. I am also satisfied that the system reflects the belief shared by the wildlife groups that there is an important need for responsibility in the ownership and use of guns. As we know, there are some one million hunters who readily accept the requirement of a hunting licence in order to use their guns, leaving, however, some two million gun owners unlicensed.
It is important to screen out those who are unfit to possess firearms. It is also important that those with firearms keep and use those weapons in a responsible manner. To ensure this, careless handling and storage of firearms will become subject to criminal sanctions. I will also be urging the provincial attorneys general to provide in their laws a stricter civil liability for firearms' misuse.
There are a number of other important measures contained in this bill which form part of the government's initiative to develop an effective means to curb the growth of gun-related violence in Canada. The government does not pretend for a moment that any or all of these measures together will eliminate the tragic and ruthless gun incidents that now occur. What we believe it will do, through the combination of sanctions, screening and reduced access, is reduce the occurrence of such incidents. With some 1,500 people, in the last year for which we have figures, having died of gunshot wounds of one sort or another, it is incumbent upon me, upon the government and indeed upon this parliament to deal with that situation.
Turning to another aspect of the bill, it hardly needs saying in this discussion that effective apprehension, prosecution and punishment of criminals of whatever kind relies very heavily upon the ability of the police to investigate and detect suspected criminal activities in a timely and efficient manner. This ability becomes critically important where the criminal activities are of a highly complex and sophisticated character. They take place in a well organized and geographically dispersed fashion and the known criminals of the syndicate are often but minor or bit players. The real bosses remain remote, and to all outward appearances respectable citizens.
Nor are the criminal activities of the organized operation gentle in nature. They involve, as we well know from the gangland slayings in Montreal and Vancouver, some of the most violent forms of crime. Even where non-violent, the crimes are of the most insidious nature: loan sharking, extortion, drug trafficking, and prostitution rings. One has

but to read the reports of the Organized Crime Commission of Quebec and of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit of British Columbia to appreciate the scope and character of organized criminal endeavours and activity.
The government share the concern of the public that these criminal business enterprises must be combated and the crime bosses exposed and punished. Because they operate underground, shrouded in secrecy, the law enforcement agencies must be equipped to enable them to carry out their task if the public is to be adequately protected against the threats and incursions of organized criminals.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the amendments proposed to be made to the protection of privacy legislation, amendments that have been the subject of considerable controversy in certain quarters since the introduction of this bill. These measures will come under close scrutiny before the standing committee and it is not my intention to discuss the details of the proposed amendments at this time. I do wish, however, to set forth my reasons for introducing these important modifications in the privacy legislation and, at the same time, attempt to dispel certain misapprehensions by explaining the true nature and intent of the proposed changes.
First let me say that the amendments we propose in Bill C-83 do not derogate from the fundamental principle recognized by parliament in 1974 in the Protection of Privacy Act: that the individual has a right to privacy in respect of his private and lawful communications with others. That was a fundamental provision of the earlier bill and remains a fundamental provision. Consistent with that principle, parliament prohibited absolutely any unauthorized interception of a private communication by anyone. It also established a rigorous procedure by which the police could, with judicial permission, conduct electronic surveillance for justifiable law enforcement purposes.
The real safeguards provided by parliament were the judicial scrutiny of police requests for authorizations, the criminal sanctions of five years imprisonment for unauthorized interceptions, and the civil recourses including those against the Crown. This was new legislation at that time, breaking new ground. It was stated by the government in 1974 that the effectiveness of the legislation would be closely monitored and, indeed, the legislation provided for such monitoring and reporting.
We have reports from the Solicitor General and from the provincial attorneys general, as well as a comprehensive report prepared in 1975 representing the views of the provincial attorneys general, major police forces and telephone companies as well as members of the federal Department of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General. It is clearly evident from these reports that there are several provisions in the 1974 legislation that are seriously hampering the police and prosecutors in effective detection and prosecution of major criminal activities. I would be remiss in my obligations as Attorney General of Canada if I did not put these concerns before this House.
If we are truly determined to combat crime in an effective manner, our responsible law enforcement authorities must be provided with the proper means to accomplish that task. It was not, in my view, parliament's intention in 1974 to frustrate or impede the ability of the authorities to uncover and to prosecute crimes. Nor is it now the govern-
March 8, 1976

ment's intention in the proposed amendments to sweep aside, as some would suggest, the protection of private conversations or the safeguards for ensuring them. None of the amendments does that. The criminal sanctions remain. The civil recourses remain. Most important, the judicial supervision of authorizations remains. To obtain an authorization, the police must bring before a judge concrete evidence supported by affidavits showing that there is ample reason to believe an offence has been or is about to be committed. The judge must be satisfied that an authorization would be in the best interests of justice and that no other means of investigation is practicable. This is no simple procedure, Mr. Speaker.
Those who criticize our proposals as ones that will sanction the misuse of electronic surveillance are, I think, ignoring the reality of these safeguards. They would appear to be showing lack of faith in the integrity of our police forces and to be raising doubts about the ability of our judges to examine the merits of a request for an authorization. I do not share this doubt or lack of faith. Consequently, I do not fear that repeal of the notification provision or the change respecting the admissibility of derivative evidence will open the floodgates of illegal wiretapping.
On the other hand, I am satisfied that the existing law on these two points may well be impeding and will continue to impede effective police investigation of criminal activities, especially those of an organized and sophisticated nature. It is equally allowing known criminals to elude justice despite the weight of the evidence.
On the question of notification, the present rule requiring written notice to be given within 90 days after the surveillance of a person has terminated seriously inhibits the use of electronic surveillance, especially of organized crime. The notice alerts the target before the complex investigation can be successfully completed. I would note, for hon. members, that electronic surveillance is the only technique of criminal investigation in which there is a requirement for the authorities to advise a suspect that he is under investigation.
With respect to the derivative evidence rule, it is resulting in serious and unjustified delays in criminal trials. It is also allowing known criminals to elude conviction by having real evidence of a crime, derived as a result of an invalid authorization, excluded from the trial. There is some justification for excluding an illegally intercepted communication itself. I can see none for the exclusion of real evidence derived from such an interception where such evidence is both relevant and persuasive as to the commission of an offence.
The "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine of United States jurisprudence is not part of the common law of Canada, and is criticized even in that country. I think the present provision in the privacy legislation which incorporates it should be removed. As Wigmore, the great American authority on evidence, has noted, the exclusionary rule makes justice inefficient and coddles criminals by serving neither to protect potential victims nor to punish the offending officer. Rather, it punishes society by the release of criminals in our midst.


Mr. Fairweather:: Oh, oh!
Measures Against Crime


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am just quoting Wigmore, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: What about the Law Reform
Commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Law Reform Commission did not, in its model, comment on evidence. The rules are in the present privacy act, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You have repudiated it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is to overcome these kinds of problems that we are proposing several important amendments to the privacy legislation. These amendments, I should note in conclusion, have received the full support of the provincial attorneys general, not all of whom, hon. members will be aware, are members of my political persuasion.
The proposed amendments to the protection of privacy legislation will go some distance to assist the police in their ordinary investigation of criminal activities. However, the work and results of the Quebec Organized Crime Commission have demonstrated the importance of and the need for investigative machinery beyond the traditional operations of the police if we are successfully to uproot widespread organized crime in Canada.
First, such crime networks can and do extend their tentacles beyond a particular province. Second, potential witnesses to such criminal activities are most reluctant to co-operate with the authorities on the usual voluntary basis because they live in terror of the consequences of such co-operation. Third, as the Quebec Organized Crime Commission has shown, or as reading of the law enforcement reports of British Columbia will show, there is real value in developing an increased public awareness of the existence and insidious nature of organized crime. The public spotlight is frequently the weapon most feared by crime bosses.
Last year, as hon. members know, the legal validity of the Quebec Organized Crime Commission was challenged in the courts, it being argued that such bodies may be legally established only under federal criminal law. This question is still before the Supreme Court of Canada. Beyond this, it was demonstrated during hearings of the Quebec commission that it is essential for any such commission to have power to reach witnesses and documents in other provinces. Finally, if this special machinery is to be established, it is imperative to ensure that it operates in a manner that secures real and uniform legal safeguards for the rights of persons being questioned or investigated.
For these reasons, the bill includes amendments to the Criminal Code to authorize a province to establish a special crime inquiry commission as necessary, with both effective powers and proper legal safeguards. It provides for common powers and safeguards throughout the country. The legislation also is flexible in leaving to each provincial attorney general the ability to determine the particular approach to take in investigating criminal activities with a formal, full-scale inquiry or with a less formal examination of the matters. Both these measures, I am satisfied, are consonant with the four principles that I outlined at the outset of this speech.

March 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
Turning to another aspect of Bill C-83, the government shares the public's very proper concern for greater protection against offenders who perpetrate acts of serious personal violence. This bill contains provisions to enable the courts to order an indeterminate separation from society for criminals whose propensity to violent conduct constitutes a serious and continuing physical threat to other people. Both the report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, the Ouimet report of 1969, and the Senate report "Parole in Canada", the Goldenberg report of 1974, recommended that the habitual criminal and dangerous sexual offender provisions of the Criminal Code be replaced by new "dangerous offender" legislation.
The Ouimet report criticized the habitual offender provisions on the grounds that almost 40 per cent of those sentenced to preventive detention had never been convicted of a serious offence against the person. The provisions had been applied to a substantial number of persistent offenders who were perhaps a "grave social nuisance" but who did not constitute a serious threat to personal safety. Those offenders who indeed were dangerous were often excluded from the application of the legislation because of the requirement of three previous convictions for serious indictable offences. The same report also noted that a dangerous sexual offender is only one class of dangerous offender, and concluded that it would be preferable to enact legislation that would encompass dangerous offenders generally. In this way, account would be taken of the violent nature of the crime and not simply its statutory classification.
The provisions of Bill C-83 mirror the remarks of those who reported. This bill, therefore, makes provision whereby a person who is convicted of what is defined as "a serious personal injury offence"-a crime of personal violence carrying a sentence of ten years or more, and including certain sexual offences-may, under appropriate circumstances, be found by the court to be a "dangerous offender" and consequently subject to an indefinite sentence of incarceration. Because of the gravity of this type of sentencing mechanism, the government has been careful to surround the provisions with a number of safeguards for the offender.
The application for a sentence of indeterminate detention may be made by the crown attorney only with the consent of the provincial attorney general. The offender can call any relevant evidence, including that of a psychiatrist, psychologist or criminologist. The court may seek additional evidence by remanding the offender for medical observation for a limited period. The indeterminate sentence must be reviewed within three years of the sentence, and every two years thereafter, by the National Parole Board.
These safeguards reflect my concern to strike the kind of balance I referred to earlier in my remarks. They weigh the protection that must be provided to law-abiding citizens against the protection of the rights of even the most dangerous among us. In addition to these safeguards, the Solicitor General has indicated our concern for developing more adequate treatment facilities in which to place persons found to be dangerous offenders.
I am satisfied that indeterminate sentencing should no longer be used against criminals who do not pose a con-

tinuing and serious threat to the life, safety and well-being of others. This type of sentencing, however, is a necessary mechanism to protect society against dangerous criminals where it is virtually impossible, at the point of sentencing, for a judge to determine the appropriate length of sentence to be imposed. The advantage of the indeterminate sentence lies in the fact that it postpones the decision on a proper release date to the point where the authorities can more accurately judge the readiness of the dangerous offender to resume a normal life in the community without constituting a continuing threat to others' safety and well-being.
One of the most serious concerns people have about threats to their personal security relates to the number of persons accused of violent crimes or imprisoned for such offences who a short time afterwards are out on the streets and often committing further crimes. To this concern the government is responding now. Bill C-71, which has already been passed by this House, contains provisions which, until they have been proven guilty, make it more difficult for certain types of accused persons to obtain release on bail pending trial.
In addition, the Solicitor General has announced a series of administrative measures respecting the containment of prisoners who constitute a continuing threat to society and the supervision of inmates released during their sentence. For example, he has indicated prison construction measures that involve phasing out some institutions and replacing them with smaller facilities better suited to controlling specific groups of inmates. These will be particularly important in ensuring proper custody for long-term inmates. Regional custodial centres will be constructed both for secure custody and for the treatment of offenders. As another example, in the case of offenders convicted of offences involving violence who have a history of violent behaviour, they will now not be eligible for parole consideration until they have served one-half of their sentence, or seven years, whichever is the lesser. At present, they are eligible after one-third of the sentence is served.
On the legislative side, Bill C-83 increases the penalty for escape or attempted escape from prison from five to ten years. It also repeals the right to statutory remission of sentence, thus eliminating any automatic shortening of the time an inmate must serve in prison. Instead, inmates must earn all remission. The fact that all remission must be earned, that none will be automatic, that it will be subject to forfeiture for misconduct and cannot be restored, will place a greater onus on the inmate to earn, by good behaviour and participation in prison programs, the earliest release date possible. This should promote better conditions within institutions.
The National Parole Board will be increased from 19 members to 26, and provision is made for the establishment of provincial boards of parole for those provinces which wish to do so. This will allow for fuller consideration of each case in the parole decision-making process and make the system generally more effective. With respect to temporary absences without escort, the period to be served before such privilege may be granted will be lengthened and the authority to grant leave will be transferred from the penitentiary officials to the Parole Board.
March 8, 1976

These measures will, we believe, go a considerable way toward ensuring that those inmates whose presence in the community constitutes a threat to citizens' security will in future be more securely confined. Release will occur only at such time and in such circumstances as best serve the need for protection of the community.
In conclusion, I have attempted to outline in a rather general way the policies, and the principal measures designed to implement them, provided for in Bill C-83 and to explain how I believe they represent a measured and reasoned approach to dealing with a number of basic problems apparent in our criminal justice system. In the ensuing debate and committee consideration many differing views and proposals will be advanced on the measures. I would like to assure hon. members-I think they know me well enough to know, from my record in the House, that such is true-that I will be, of course, open to all constructive criticism and proposals for further improvements both from them and from members of the public.
I would only like to add that the formulation and implementation of criminal justice policies is very much an ongoing process and is continuous, and the measures set forth in this legislation reflect but one part of the continuum. It is also a process that to be fully effective requires close and continuing consultation and collaboration with the provinces and their attorneys general. On the present measures there has been, and will continue to be, such co-operation and this will, of course, continue to be my policy in future initiatives.
There are many things yet to be done to bring about further improvements in the policies and the system. Evidence of this exists, among other places, in the many proposals for reform that are emanating from the Law Reform Commission. We have now received from the commission its first two final reports, one on the laws of evidence and the other on principles of sentencing, and look forward to a number of others in the months ahead. I will shortly be discussing with the provincial attorneys general the problems of the present pretrial procedures in criminal cases and have requested the Law Reform Commission to bring forth proposals for consideration of this matter on a priority basis.
We are now examining closely their reports on a code of evidence and on disposition and sentencing with a view to reaching early decisions, after consultations with the provincial ministers, on which of their recommendations can be incorporated, at the federal level, readily into our criminal justice policies to improve the quality and operation of the criminal justice system. Some of the recommendations in the report on sentencing are aimed at the most basic considerations of all: how to resolve conflicts without resort to the criminal justice system; how to prevent people getting enmeshed in the system in the first place or, once involved, how the system can be used in a restorative and reparative way.
I am also particularly concerned about the system as it relates to our native population. My department is developing a number of projects and measures, in concert with the provinces, designed to adapt the system to their particular needs and concerns. In these and other initiatives my goal will be to foster a criminal justice system that will best serve the interests and merit the respect of
Measures Against Crime
all the people of Canada, and I invite parliament's careful examination of this objective and of these proposals.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate the minister on making an excellent case out of such a bad bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now I would like to file a caveat and a notice to you, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of my address I will move a motion, which I have studied very carefully and for the preparation of which I managed to obtain the best experts I could on the subject, knowing full well the difficulty of moving any amendment on second reading. Before I start my address I wish to bring to Your Honour's attention that the bill which we are now debating, Bill C-83, 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 substantive new law on gun control. In other words, 39 pages out of 73 deal with the new law on gun control and the other sections, on which I will speak in a few moments, are merely amendments to the existing law. Because of that, I hope that when I complete my remarks the minister will agree with the motion which I will put forward.
In a bill of this nature the minister has brought in an extensive change to the law on gun control, a new law contained in 39 pages deliberately mixed with other amendments. This was done deliberately. You are damned if you do, and damned if you do not, and that is the reason the bill was drawn up in this fashion. I serve notice that I will move a motion that the bill be not read a second time because of the mixture of a brand new law and amendments which are merely a patchwork and which should be separated from the new law. We should have a separate debate on gun control and another one on the patchwork of amendments to the Criminal Code. This would give an opportunity to every member in the House, wherever he sits, to express himself on his will and his conscience-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -and, above all, on the conscience of the people of this country who are very concerned about this problem. As one newspaper man put it to me today, it is a big bundle in a big chunk, and most of that chunk deals with gun control.


An hon. Member:: Some journalist.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He might be a favourite of yours, so be careful. He wrote a pretty good article about you recently. I believe that this bill should be severed. In my comments I will show why it should be severed, why gun control should be separate from amendments on dangerous offenders, from amendments on wiretapping and provisions for a special inquiry, giving provinces certain jurisdiction, and from changes in the Parole Act.
My first words on this subject are to clear up immediately the misunderstanding which has crept across the nation, and even into the media, that the debate today will include a discussion on amendments and new laws to be added to

March 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
the Criminal Code, namely, gun control, dangerous offenders, amendments giving the police full powers under the wiretap legislation-I will deal with that matter when I get to that point in my address-the assurance that the provinces will have the jurisdiction and power to conduct special crime inquiries, even though this government challenged the right of the provinces, and the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly Quebec to hold its crime inquiry, changes in the Parole Board, reversing the wrongful changes made by the Trudeau administration usurping-I want to emphasize this-parliament in regard to parole which was established by the Diefenbaker government. He was a man who had great compassion, an understanding of the criminal law and of the civil rights of people in this nation. This government has done more to usurp a good rehabilitation program in eight years than anything in my imagination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Along with these five things there has been deception across the land, through the media. The deception across the land, through the media, is that today hon. members on the other side of the House as well as on this side would be debating not only this bill on the amendments to the code but the question of abolition of the death penalty for capital murder or treason. This debate concerns the amendments, and certainly not abolition. I was glad to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) say that. The Minister of Justice emphasized that because they have endeavoured to sell this package to the Canadian people on peace and security when the media, members of this House and people across the land believed they were having one package, one debate with five amendments to the code including the question of abolition of capital punishment. The government is using this bill to assure the people that it stands for peace and security, and now it uses the words "law and order" and therefore it can take a different attitude as to murder.
It is really an astute, premeditated and planned attempt on the part of this government, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to try to give the impression that the bill, entitled "an act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violence and other crime", Bill C-83, and the abolition Bill, Bill C-84, and the calling of both bills together peace and security legislation, that by this method the people would believe there would be one debate, one bill to deal with the increase of violence and murder in our nation, and to give the impression that they have the answers and that they have always stood for excellence in the administration of justice and have the safety and protection of law-abiding citizens as their first priority. The facts, of course, will bear me out when I say that the contrary is true. The history of this government in this field illustrates that. Lest we forget, let me remind this parliament and the people of this government's previous failure to protect innocent women and children and law-abiding people of this country.
To say the least, it has been a brilliant attempt on the part of the Minister of Justice and the government-or, better, a brilliant sinister attempt-to leave the impression with the public that this government has tried to do something about crime in the past. I will deal with other

statistics when I get to that point in my speech, but in 1974 there were 258 murders where convictions were obtained; in 1975 there were 312. The murder rate was up 18.8 per cent. Breaking and entering went up 11.3 per cent, kidnapping went up 40.7 per cent, and robbery went up 70.9 per cent.
The gun control legislation in Bill C-83 which is now being debated is a legalistic-I say this with the greatest respect to the minister-and political poultice to be used to soothe the feelings of government members who are under pressure from their constituents because the government is doing nothing to half the ever-increasing trend in murder and violence in this country. The linking of gun control and new penalties for murder and other amendments under the name of peace and security was done solely to get support for both bills from the government's restless backbenchers, who are not only restless about this matter and this kind of policy but are also restless about other policies such as those for Time and Reader's Digest and about what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been saying in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We on this side of the House gave the minister a fine hearing. I hope even though hon. members opposite disagree with me, they will give me the courtesy given to the minister by me and other hon. members on this side of the House. That is why the bill was left, as the newspaperman said, in one chunk. The way the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General have been peddling their propaganda that we would be considering both bills together reminded me of the history of the 1930s, when Ramsay MacDonald, prime minister of Britain, peddled peace and disarmament throughout Europe to the allied nations while the enemy rearmed. This mistake nearly cost us our democratic way of life and it cost the world thousands of lives and much human suffering.
Likewise, this government gave the impression for eight long years that it would be easy with violent criminals. What a mistake. Rehabilitation, yes. But, surely, the release of dangerous criminals and offenders, no. I have only to remind the House, during this period of increasing violence and murder, of children's deaths, women's deaths, rapes, police harassment and the untold suffering which has taken place. I am not saying for one moment that the government is totally to blame, but it must share part of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The selling job of the two ministers has been so effective that even "The Waltons" might have believed the government is crime-busting and that gun control is the answer. In this regard it sounds like "Have Gun, will Travel" or "Batman" having driven the bad men underground. I have seen and heard the two ministers, "The Odd Couple," on "Canada A.M." on CTV, on "The Fifth Estate" on CBC, on "W-5" on CTV, and on "This Day" on CBC, pouring out their propaganda and telling the people of Canada that the two bills are one package called peace and security, so that it is believed we are now debating the whole ball of wax.
The rules do not permit me to say it was a deliberate attempt to deceive the public. They might not allow me to
March 8, 1976

go that far. But the rules do permit me to say that deception is taking place in this nation. These ministers have been on every program. They have been selling, endeavouring to persuade people, and to ingratiate themselves and their program, that murder, violence, rape and assault will be under control and that all parliament has to do is bring in gun control. I have not watched all the programs-


An hon. Member:: You are lucky.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -and I do not know for sure whether they appeared with Carol Burnett or if they intervened on "Sesame Street," but they certainly could have been on Rich Little's show, and at least they tried to be the Six Million Dollar Men who never make mistakes. All this has been going on while prisoners have been escaping, and the correctional officers have been frustrated. Some of them have been held as hostages while prisoners escaped, to the extent that anyone might have thought he had tuned in to "Hogan's Heroes". Bill C-83 is really a legal poultice.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote your speech?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone asked who wrote my speech? I might say right now that for good or for bad, I write my own speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If hon. members want corroboration of that, they can call my office and talk to Bonnie or Carol, my secretaries, and they will tell you how late they worked on Sunday. I have no $100,000 researchers.
Bill C-83 is a legal poultice and will do little to counteract the statistics on crime, and crime itself. What is the cause of crime?


An hon. Member:: Criminals.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I was about to answer. I will tell the House some of the causes underlying crime. The government has whittled away at laws which gave judges and courts power to restrain violent criminals. I am referring to easy bail regulations. The government permitted indiscreet day passes for violent and dangerous criminals and murderers. I have nothing against day passes provided there is an assurance of proper protection. Further, the government failed to implement programs of rehabilitation in penitentiaries, and failed to recognize that the destruction of the morale of correctional officers would make escape easy. Apart from these factors, if one can ignore them, one could say that the cause of crime is a social problem.
[DOT] <1610)
Indeed, rhe causes of crime are rooted in society. How many times have we heard the Solicitor General referring to statistics without foundation? This is his wishy-washy program. Really, it is the Prime Minister's. The minister is implementing it, like a puppet, without uttering a word of disapproval or showing any sign of wilful disobedience. The minister alleges that violence is on the decrease. He and I were on the television together not long ago. He looked in the camera, with that honest look of his, and
Measures Against Crime
said, "There is no evidence murder is on the increase." I went to his department and got the figures.


Mr. Allmand:: I never said that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will get the tape and the minister can hear it in my office. In 1961 there were 185 reported murders; in 1962, 217; in 1963, 315; in 1964, 218. The murder figures go up, like inflation. In 1971 the reported murders increased to 426; in 1972 there were 479; in 1973, 474; and in 1974, 545. That is this government's record of controlling violence and murder.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Go back over the newspaper columns of the past five years and you will find page after page of propaganda-at which this government is very good-telling the people of this country that violent crime is on the decrease. The government put out that propaganda. But something happened despite all the propaganda put out by the government opposite, a government never before equalled in ability to produce propaganda. The Canadian people turned against the government's unworkable, jellylike policies. Incidents of hijacking, kidnapping, murder, violence, rape and assault piled up day after day until the government had to produce a remedy to retain its position even if it lost its credibility. In their administration of justice they failed to solve the problem of crime, just as in the economy they failed to control inflation. I ask again, what is the cause of crime? I have shown the government's contribution. I suggest that the real cause is the government's economic policies, coupled with the problems our nation faces together with other nations.
As I have said on other occasions that the notion that crime can be ascribed to a single category of causes is erroneous. Violent crimes create a climate of fear in the streets of our growing cities. White-collar crime, in economic terms, is much less visible than violent crime, yet the material costs of crimes such as petty theft, consumer fraud, violations of the combines act, and embezzlement dwarf the economic cost of all crimes of violence. In order to control violent and white-collar crimes we must have laws that are practical and acceptable in the light of modern, new interpretations of life and human behaviour. As I said before, our laws must be practical and do the job they were designed to do. They must not be aimed at ordinary law-abiding citizens of this country. They must be aimed at those who ignore our laws and wilfully would ignore gun licence provisions. That is why I hoped that the minister, in amending the code, would do a good job and not merely scratch the surface.
The need for proper laws and proper law enforcement cannot be underestimated in the control of crime. I have felt for years that we must get at the breeding grounds of crime. Mr. Speaker, crime breeds in the cesspools of injustice and poverty in our urban slums, in fast-growing cities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And what is the government doing? Today we hear that the Bank of Canada is to increase the interest rate. How can people borrow money to buy homes? Urban poverty makes people who dwell in the slums the

March 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
victims, not the masters of their environment. The bad environment becomes the heritage of the next generation. In order to launch a major assault on crime we must attack the despair and denial of human opportunity which makes crime grow. I know that crime also thrives under conditions of affluence. White-collar, economic crime is eroding our system of society and promoting more controls and less freedom. That is why I felt the government ought to introduce separately the gun control law and the other provisions. We should discuss them separately and vote on them separately.
In brief, the police, our courts and prisons cannot long control crime. We must deal with the underlying causes of crime, the immense and stubborn forces pervading our environment, measuring our character and determining the quality of our lives. With long-range efforts in a new land of bountiful resources we can conquer poverty, ignorance, disease, discrimination, family breakdown, injustice, social tension and despair. While we must strive to uproot the causes of crime, we must put our practical minds to work to amend the various sections of the Criminal Code and guarantee that the law is respected, not shaped and planned to protect the rich and create injustice for the poor.
The law will only be respected as long as our judges are respected. It is absolutely intolerable that ministers of the Crown should interfere with the courts. What happened recently is without precedent. A minister admitted that he talked to a judge concerning another minister who had been found guilty of contempt of court. At least I can say one thing about the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury). He is honest. He stated the case. Others hid behind various precedents as though pleading the American fifth amendment. The Minister of Public Works, in answer to a question I raised, said in part, as reported on page 11457 of Hansard:
If it were not for the fact that I consider the associate chief justice of Quebec, whom I have known for a number of years, to be uninfluen-cible, in a pejorative sense, I would have refrained from intervening or from having any conversation with him.
In other words, he talked to the judge because he knew he could not influence him; he knew he could not interfere with his decision.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like the Chair to indicate to the hon. gentleman that the topic he has dealt with in the last minute and a half has nothing to do with the bill before the House.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, we know why the Liberals understand gun control. When they are wounded verbally, they cry.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that phrase, Eldon?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Public Works went on to say;
Indeed, the only intervention that would be contemplated by me would be one to see that he was in full knowledge of the facts and did his duty-
I will let the matter rest. There cannot be peace and security in this nation if our courts are not respected.

Crime is a national problem according to our constitution, while law enforcement is a provincial and local responsibility. Parliament must direct its processes so as to ensure criminal justice. We must bring excellence to every aspect of the administration of criminal justice-to corrections, to courts, to law enactment in every jurisdiction of Canada. The law must be reformed, or repealed. If enforcement is impossible and law enforcement permits laws to be broken like dishes because the majority of people find them unjust and no one wants to obey them, they must be repealed. I will in a few moments be showing the anomalies in respect of gun control so that hon. members will understand the background of what I am building up to at this moment.
Surely this is the purpose of many of these code amendments. The law will be obeyed only when it is respected. The law will be obeyed only when it is just. The law will be obeyed when those in high office respect and carefully guard our traditions and constitution, the dignity the law demands and the dignity which we expect from the judiciary, the executive, parliament and the administration of justice. Nothing short of that standard is acceptable to this side of the House. We will have a free vote in my party on capital punishment. We demand the fullest examination by a standing committee on all of these matters. In my motion we will demand that the question of gun control-which is brand new law, not an amendment to the code-be severed from the bill so that both these matters can be discussed in an intelligent and able manner.
What about the gun control legislation? Let us have an examination of it. Apart from the argument as to whether gun control will stop the massive increase in crime, what are some of the farcical anomalies contained in the clauses of Bill C-83? The government has never taken the trouble, even with all its studies on gun control, to determine the cost of administering it, the number of bureaucrats it will take to licence all the guns in Canada, to issue permits for restricted weapons, as well as the certificates, licensing and other documentation in order to obtain ammunition. They never thought of looking into that. When I asked the Solicitor General questions about this, he said they have a big study going on with regard to gun control and are looking into this question. In these days of anti-inflation, one would have thought they would have considered the cost as well as the number of bureaucrats it will take, in addition to looking into the effect this will have on the law-abiding citizens of this country.
We should be able to determine the number of people needed to administer the legislation, such as issuing licences for all guns, issuing permits for restricted guns, issuing certificates, etc., and to administer control of the sale and use of guns, together with the same for ammunition. I put these questions to the Minister of Justice:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, the answer of which may assist us in the second reading debate on the peace and security bill. As sportsmen of Canada assess that about six million guns will be affected by the legislation, has the minister assessed how many public servants, including police officers, will be needed to issue permits for restricted guns and licences for all guns, and what the cost in this regard will be to the Canadian public?
March 8, 1976

I have hundreds of letters from my constituency and all across Canada asking me that question. What was the answer? I quote:
Mr. Speaker, there has been a careful analysis, but it is impossible to say what the result will be and how many people will be involved because this will depend to some extent on special arrangements made in each province.
Let me pause during my reading of this quotation. Will the provinces have to take this financial load in the same way as they did with the health program of this country? Naturally, we hope to keep the administrative and licensing staff to a minimum-
That is easy to say, but what is the minimum?
-but, at the same time, make licensing personnel available in communities throughout Canada so that there will not be difficulty in obtaining licences. I anticipate that we shall use provincial and federal police forces-
By the way, the police forces do not want this obligation and responsibility. I asked further about the staff. I will not read all the answer. However, I was told that the government does not know how large a staff is needed or what the cost will be. That is something they did not consider. We know that if the government needs more money it will tax the Canadian taxpayer to death.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear a laugh. I wonder if the hon. member's constituents would laugh. Do you think they would laugh, Mr. Speaker? There are many anomalies in this guns control legislation. If I mentioned them all it would take longer than a speech in the United States Congress during a filibuster. Let us examine the definition of "ammunition." It's a humdinger. It is defined as follows:
Ammunition means ammunition for a firearm and includes any component, element or part such as a bullet, pellet, cartridge case, primer or propellant powder that is primarily useful as a component, element or part of ammunition.
That really means that ammunition is ammunition in whole. It is a shotgun shell, the powder, the pellet-casing and the cartridge. If it is a rifle bullet, it is the whole casing. It is the bullet, ,the powder and everything or any part thereof. What does the definition clause mean? Does this mean, when you read the clauses of the bill keeping in mind the definition, that if hunters find empty cartridges on the ground expelled from a shotgun, the finder has an obligation, as a finder of a component of ammunition, to turn in the empty cartridge to the police? If he should put it in his pocket absent-mindedly, and on the way home be stopped by the police, it is found as part and parcel of ammunition which is not his licensed ammunition, and he is guilty of an offence. He could be fined or sent to jail.
Let us take a second example. Clause 106.3 (11) on page 28 of the bill states that farmboys who go gopher hunting- they all do that on the prairies and, I assume, in other rural areas of Canada-with a 22 rifle to protect their fathers' grain crops will be classified as game hunters. In another clause it states that young people under 18 are only permitted to use guns if the families need the game as part of their living. Who eats gophers? What a farce.
Third, let us examine clause 106.5 on page 33 of the bill, which provides that everyone who, without lawful excuse, fails to obtain a licence or fails to get a registration certifi-
Measures Against Crime
cate or permit, as the case may be, shall be liable to be charged with an indictable offence. If convicted, such a person would be liable-I believe this is the maximum-to two years' imprisonment, a fine or, as an alternative, guilty on summary conviction and fined. In this regard, the law is an ass. It will not be obeyed. If the law is not just, practical and workable, it will not be obeyed. That is one more reason these clauses regarding gun control should be severed from the other amendments.
Are law-abiding citizens to be put in jail because guns have been outlawed, except if they prescribe to the rules and regulations of this government? It will be the law-abiding citizens who will be subject to jail and fines, while the criminals will break the gun law as easily and as quickly as they commit violence, rape, robbery and murder. This is the reason gun control in this bill should be severed from wiretapping and other parts of the bill. Members of parliament should be able to disapprove, approve, and certainly improve gun control legislation as laid down by the government, without being controlled by the other terms of the bill. I might say you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Of course, that is the reason the government put it this way. It is enough to make the "Dynamic Duo" turn in their tights in disgust and mutter in the imaginative words of Boy Wonder, "Holy poultice policy, Batman, the Trudeau government is at it again."
In summary, may I say that the provisions for licensing, through federal government machinery, of rifles and shotguns may accomplish little more than a build-up of bureaucratic activity. The number of extra officials needed cannot be estimated by me and is ignored by the government. What will the cost amount to? What are the alternatives to this legislation? What are the suggestions which have been made? Perhaps better results could be obtained by using machinery already in existence by way of hunters' safety courses and courses conducted by recognized gun clubs. I should like to see the committee investigate this aspect. We might be looking toward the expansion of facilities which already exist. Tests in competence of handling handguns could easily be conducted by gun clubs as they are today in connection with hunters' safety courses.
The bill has repealed, without comment, section 101(b), previously the saving clause for youths who wanted to use guns under parental guidance for hunting or associated activities. Clause 106 leaves the way open for future restriction by way of government regulations. We have been giving no indication of what might eventually come out of those regulations. Too much power is being left to the governor in council. Another question is, what will be the cost of all this? Will a licence fee of $10 be charged to everyone who owns a gun? Are the law-abiding citizens of this land the ones who will have to pay the shot? Will only those who are not law-abiding get away free? I saw a sign the other day, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Not bad. That was sent to me in the mail.
Now I want to turn to another subject the Minister of Justice mentioned-special crime inquiries in the provinces. I believe this is a good step in the right direction. Every province will be able to hold inquiries with respect to crime within its borders, and those tribunals will have the power to subpoena witnesses. But it is my comprehen-

March 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
sion that when Quebec was doing such a good job in investigating criminal activity within its borders, the Minister of Justice challenged its right to do so. He brought a case before the Supreme Court of Canada, judgment with respect to which has so far not been written. But for the Quebec inquiry we would not have known of the millions of dollars of meat which was sold, cut and carved from carcasses of animals which had died of disease and disposed of as hamburger, flavoured with onions by way of deception.
What we saw there was an attempt to destroy not only the moral fibre but the physical welfare of the Canadian people. The Quebec Crime Commission is to be congratulated on its work in this area. I suppose all that fraud was carried out by criminals under the reasoning that if they couldn't get at the people's morals they would get at their stomachs and pocketbooks through their appetites.
Now I turn to the subject of wiretapping and to the changes in the wiretapping legislation. I listened very carefully and made notes of what the minister said. He did not think the changes would erode civil rights. I realize that the detection of crime is very important, but surely members in all quarters of the House must weigh very carefully the proper balance between crime detection and civil rights. This is the reason distinguished members of parliament such as my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), one of the best legal minds in the House, and my hon. friend from Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather), have insisted that 90 days after an electronic device-for example, a telephone-has been wiretapped, the person so affected must be notified that this was the case.
This section is now to be repealed. I understand the reasons: police officers in the detection of crime must not be hindered in their ability to possess and use equipment equivalent to that possessed by sophisticated, wealthy criminals. Yet on the other hand there is the aspect of civil liberties to be considered. If there is any interference with crime detection arising from the provision for notice, the time can surely be extended or abridged by a judge of a superior court to give the police the authority and protection they need. That is our recommendation, Mr. Speaker, while at the same time preventing the wrongful tapping, without their knowledge, of telephones used by law-abiding citizens.
Mr. Speaker, since I came to parliament I have defended the administration of justice and the actions of police officers in every category where they have acted judiciously and properly in the course of the administration of justice. Yet on the other hand, as an experienced trial lawyer may I remind hon. members-those who are lawyers will hardly need to be reminded-that I am well aware that this kind of power, placed in the wrong hands at the wrong time by the wrong people, can lead to the erosion of civil rights. Certainly, I have great respect for the RCMP. I have great respect for police officers who administer the law. But when you give so much power to people who want that kind of power, you can damage civil rights. That is why one has to build in a mechanism to protect civil rights, weighing it against the need for crime detection. Is that too much to ask, Mr. Speaker? I would think not.

What about the clauses the Minister of Justice has dealt with in relation to dangerous offenders? I turn to the legislation covering dangerous offenders. The name of the offence is changed or, putting it in another way, the power of a judge to give an indeterminate sentence to accused persons who continue to use or attempt to use violent conduct endangering, or likely to endanger, the life or safety of another person or inflicting, or likely to inflict, severe psychological damage on another person, has been given a new name. The name of the offence has been changed; that is all. I agree that the phrase "habitual criminal" was not very good. I like the new description. But it is not something which is going to change the whole ball of wax in the control of crime.
I agree that a person might get drunk every weekend and end up in jail every weekend, which might point to habitual conduct on his part, but he would certainly not be an habitual criminal. No judge, as I read the authorities, has ever used the section in that manner. Changing the name does not strengthen the law. What does the change do to control crime? This is another example of an attempt by the government to place mock law and mock courts on a level with reality.
Last, but not least, we must consider the changing of the rules governing parole. Since 1968, when the just society was promised to the Canadian people, the pages of criminal history as exposed by the media are full of cases showing that day passes have been given indiscreetly and indiscriminately to violent criminals, to dangerous offenders who have returned to the streets of our cities, ravaging and threatening society, murdering and plundering, robbing and killing. I do not need to mention the Head case, a man serving his sentence having been found guilty of raping five different girls under the age of nine. He was released, without any provision of supervision, by the Department of the Solicitor General; not when the present minister was Solicitor General, though. But the policy never changed; just the personnel. What did this prisoner do? He murdered one of the warden's daughters.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House stand for rehabilitation. We believe the conditions under which people are incarcerated for certain offences in this country are deplorable. On the other hand, when there are dangerous criminals, and when they are known to be dangerous, when they are habitual offenders, great care should surely be taken to segregate them from society, to use the words of the Minister of Justice. I hope the hon. gentleman, as the new Minister of Justice, will follow that course.
The day of repentance is upon us, and what is the government doing? Membership of the Parole Board is to be increased to 26, making it regional in nature. The bill does much along lines I have recommended. The former solicitor general, now the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), in his wisdom and with the authority and consent of the government destroyed the parole system. He stated when he was minister-this was shown me by one of the officers who is now no longer in the service-that the first priority was rehabilitation, and the second was the protection of society. He got his priorities reversed. No wonder the policy went sour.
You know, Mr. Speaker, there is a weed on the prairies called tumbling mustard which rolls and spreads its seed

across the land. Every time it topples it changes its position, and every time it changes its position it sows different seeds. This symbolizes the government's policy in the last eight years. One can truly categorize this policy as the tumbling weed program of the Liberal party. We now demand, on behalf of parliament and the country, a full airing of this legislation in the committee; and we demand, above all, that the term of the bill be separated.
When I started my introductory remarks I said I proposed to amend the motion now before the House. I shall do so because this bill, in each of its several parts, confronts us with the keystone question of political science. That question is: Where does the lawmaker strike the balance of convenience between the rights of society and the rights of the private citizen? These state rights and private rights are as the two sides of one coin. No man is free under the law of the jungle. That being so, society exists to ensure that the private citizen, in surrendering the minimum of his freedoms, is free to enjoy the maximum remainder of his freedoms. It is equally true that no man is free in a society that requires of him no more than the minimum surrender of his freedoms; he can lose his freedoms when the lawmakers forget that society exists for man, not man for society.
For example, we lawmakers may be forgetful of this principle when the administrators of the laws we pass are inefficient, when they protest that they are inefficient only because they need more power over the private citizen for his own good. The private citizen is therefore required by us to surrender more of his freedom to these administrators. This leads full circle to a bureaucratic society where the freedoms of the private citizen are trapped fast in a jungle of red tape and autocratic decisions. Again, and briefly, Mr. Speaker, the freedoms of the private citizen can be unduly sacrificed to political expediency or overreaction to the so-called "public demand". Too often, public demand is the demand of minority pressure groups.
With particular reference to Bill C-83, it has been said that some of the tougher law and order provisions, which the government now calls peace and security provisions, have been inserted by the government to seduce unwilling converts among its backbenchers to vote freely on the side of the government for the abolition of capital punishment. Others would have it that these law and order provisions are an overkill reaction by the government to so-called public demand.
I have heard a third explanation, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, March 4, the government, on the motion of its leader there, referred the subject matter of this bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Such a reference to the other place has been generally reserved for the subject matter of bills dealing with income tax, corporation laws, and banks. In fact, the practice is known as the "Hayden gambit", after its innovator, the honourable chairman of the Senate banking, trade and commerce committee. The present reference appears to be a departure from banking to criminal law. I am assured, however, that the departure from practice is more apparent than real.
Adjournment Motion
Last year, it is pointed out, was the most recessive year in Canada in the last 20 years. In that most recessive of years, bank profits rose 50 per cent. In that most bank profitable year, bank robberies rose accordingly. Therefore, this bill and the Senate reference are explained on the basis that the government foresees that so long as this government is in power the recession will increase, bank profits will increase and bank robberies will increase. The government has decided that something must be done about it. Bank robberies must be stopped, so the government has brought in gun control.
I do not necessarily subscribe to all these views, Mr. Speaker. After all, it must appear to the public that there have been a few breaches of law and order centred in these parliament buildings in recent times. But, seriously, I do endorse the method used by the other place. We should be permitted to have this bill go back to committee now, before second reading is completed, to enable the committee solely to study and report on the manner in which the bill itself has been drawn, a bill that puts 39 pages of new gun controls in our law, together with a patchwork of other amendments. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I move the following motion in all seriousness, and I believe I am in order:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"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."
The motion is seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). I appreciate that Your Honour may want to hear some comments on the motion I have moved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Chair will take the amendment under advisement and allow the debate to continue.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment this evening are as follows: the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)-Regional Economic Expansion; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian Economy; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald)-External Affairs.
11590
Measures Against Crime



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
March 8, 1976

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection, signed by the hon. members for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), Oxford (Mr. Halliday), Elgin (Mr. Wise), Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley), York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), and Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), has been filed with me, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, RSC 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violence and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate Your Honour has reserved your decision on my motion in order to consider it, but I would file the caveat at this moment that before any decision is made some hon. members would like to speak to the question of my right to move such a motion at this time.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was going to make the same suggestion as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I hope that at some point the Chair will want to hear argument on the motion by appropriate members of the House, and we will reserve our position on that matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some care and attention to the lofty goals that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) outlined for Canada's criminal justice system and the measures that he
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
suggests will ensure that the system continues to be effective. He also said in the course of his remarks that crime in Canada is under control and that these measures will ensure that it will continue to be under control. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not very hard for members on this side of the House to find a great deal to disagree with in those statements. First of all, crime is not under control in Canada, and anyone who takes a careful look at crime statistics knows that it is not under control. In communities where I come from in the province of British Columbia people continue to lock their doors and buy German shepherd dogs. With the growing siege mentality in the surburbs of our major urban areas, the people know that crime is not under control. This legislation is not going to solve that problem. It may make some kind of dent in it, but it will not solve the problem at all-and the reason is that the legislation deals only with simplistic issues. It deals only with the penal side and not the causes of crime that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) so eloquently expressed to the House.
No program is worth looking at unless it mentions hard drugs, Mr. Speaker, and there is not a single phrase about that subject in any of the legislation that I have read.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There is nothing to deal with a problem that is insidious, that is growing and which accounts for 70 per cent of the violent crime in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The government says it is dealing with crime, yet there is not a single proposal put forward to deal with hard drugs. I think that is a shame. The minister of Justice should look again at what he calls peace and security legislation, and try to deal with that problem. People who have dealt with the hard drug problem in Canada, from the heavy penal side to the question of legalization, all agree that major change has to come about in this area. Why are we waiting so long for major change? The statistics are there. What is going on on the other side of the House? There is not a single program in Canada, not a heroin maintenance program for hard core addicts that might be worth looking at.
I do not see anything in the bill about the other major cause of crime in Canada. Sixty per cent of the inmates of our penal institutions are native Indians, yet they compose only 1 per cent of the population. How can the government say it is dealing with crime in any meaningful way when there is nothing that deals with the cultural shock of natives in Canada and the continuing conflict between the white culture and the native culture? It is to Canada's eternal shame that we do not deal aggressively and immediately with the problem of Canadian Indian crime. There is no use hiding this: it is out there, and in large proportions. We have offered a few court workers and a few token native people in the RCMP, but there has been no aggressive program to attempt to solve some of the basic cultural problems.
What we see in the legislation is a simplistic approach, one with which our party is not entirely in disagreement.
March 8, 1976

We believe there is a role for punishment in the criminal justice system; we do not disagree that some punishment should be increased where appropriate. But the great lack is the minister's insight into the causes of crime in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to deal in more detail with the question of drug-related crime. Not only is 70 per cent of the serious crime in Canada related to drugs, but 50 per cent of the inmates of federal institutions are there because of drug trafficking and drug trade offences. We spent $4 million on the LeDain commission which recommended compulsory medical treatment for hard core addicts, but we have never implemented the recommendations. I suppose that is another $4 million down the drain. Anybody involved in drugs can tell us that the approach we are taking now is a total disaster. Our crime rate continues to increase because of it. In Vancouver, in a period of three years, a coroner found that 1,000 deaths were directly attributable to hard drugs, all of which is related to the criminal process one way or another.
In Japan, under a heroin addict program of compulsory medical treatment, the number of addicts was reduced from 40,000 to 100. Maybe Japan has a different culture and a more homogeneous society but, Mr. Speaker, surely we can look somewhere else for solutions to the major cause of crime in Canada. In Great Britain, with a population of 50 million, there are 3,000 heroin addicts. They have a program to try to decriminalize users. That does not mean they legalize the distribution of hard drugs, but they isolate addicts and treat them. We should do the same in an effort to stop the insidious growth of drugs in schools where the user has no choice but to turn somebody younger on in order to secure the means of supporting his habit, so the thing pyramids through whole urban areas. The government is doing nothing about this.
In British Columbia we are beginning to think the government does not know we exist. We have the major drug problem in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I should like to quote the remarks of the Vancouver coroner about this problem when he discovered there had been 1,000 deaths due to drugs. The Vancouver Province reports the coroner as saying that serious consideration should be given to a federally-controlled drug maintenance system for addicts in both Canada and the United States; either that or the setting up of a strict, continental enforcement of drug laws. He said that British Columbia is left virtually on its own to deal with 65 per cent of the nation's drug problem, and it is time the federal government took over the fight on a national and international scale to take the profit out of heroin trafficking.
As long as we continue to treat crime in a completely one-sided and simplistic way, all we will do is put offenders behind bars. In many cases that is necessary, and in many cases the public is protected because there is no repetition of the offence. But it is not getting at the root of the problem. I mentioned earlier the problems of the native Indians are not being dealt with except in a token way with the provision of some court workers. There have been some Indian friendship centres as well. The crisis problem
NATO Service Award
with the native people, however, is the educational system. We continue to warp the Indian's view of himself in the way we treat the history of Indian people in Canada. Until we decide to give Indian people pride in their culture, we will continue to see the growth of the insidious problem of the white culture imposing itself on the native culture, with the massive social and criminal problems that follow.
I want to say a few words now about the subject of gun control, Mr. Speaker. I have very vigorous disagreements with the hon. member for Calgary North concerning almost everything he had to say about gun control. Indeed, I wonder whether he read the bill. He was talking about the licensing of guns. I read the bill, and there is nothing in it about licensing guns; it is licensing of ownership. That is a proposal that has been made by most gun clubs in Canada, most wildlife federations, and it is the proposal we are now examining.
I oppose the registration of weapons Mr. Speaker. I think it is an unnecessary bureaucracy. The requirement that a person should act responsibly, however, and have a permit to buy a long rifle is not a severe interference with his rights, it seems to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We are a little beyond five o'clock, so pursuant to the order made on Friday, February 27, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, and public bills.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, we agreed, through the usual negotiations, to discuss motion No. 43.
Before moving it,-



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There has been agreement on all sides that motion No. 43, in the name of the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), shall be amended prior to presentation so that it shall read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government consider the advisability of taking immediate steps to establish a service award for past and present members of the Canadian armed forces serving in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in recognition of their dedication and high standards, keeping in mind that such awards already exist for members of the Canadian armed forces serving in the United Nations peacekeeping duties and that NATO servicemen deserve the same recognition.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That has been agreed, Mr. Speaker.
21419-4l!/z

March 8, 1976
NATO Service Award


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that the House proceed with motion No. 43 at this time appearing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for York Centre, and that the preceding motions be stood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it also agreed that the hon. member for York Centre shall have permission to modify his motion as suggested, to meet the more normal presentation procedure in respect of motions to be adopted in the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government consider the advisability of taking immediate steps to establish a service award for past and present members of the Canadian armed forces serving in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in recognition of their dedication and high standards, keeping in mind that such awards already exist for members of the Canadian armed forces serving in the United Nations peacekeeping duties and that NATO servicemen deserve the same recognition.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the long session in which we are now engaged has one advantage, at least. It gives so many of us who have had resolutions on the order paper an opportunity to have them come forward for debate. I am delighted to have the opportunity now to bring forward this motion. I am certainly hopeful it will find general support among many members of the House. I am asking that the government consider the advisability of taking immediate steps to establish a service award for past and present members of the Canadian armed forces serving in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in recognition of their dedication and high standards, keeping in mind that such awards already exist for members of the Canadian armed forces serving in the United Nations peacekeeping duties and that NATO servicemen deserve the same recognition.
In my life, unfortunately I have had very little contact with the military, but that changed in the last years since I became a member of parliament representing the Downs-view air base, Canada's largest military establishment. Since then I have had a considerable amount of contact with servicemen. I wish to tell hon. members that it is not because of pressure from the servicemen that I am bringing forward this resolution. In fact, there is very considerable reluctance on the part of servicemen to acquire recognition in the form of new medals to be established for bravery or, as in this case, for service. The general view of the military is that one ought to do one's best, but should not particularly press for recognition of those efforts.
We certainly do not want to have a tremendous number of medals established for the Canadian armed forces. There are some countries in which medals are given for practically everything-almost even for recovering from a cold. No one in the armed forces would want to see that degree of proliferation of awards exist in Canada. On the other hand, it seems to me there is an anomaly in that there have been so many awards and types of recognition for other forms of service, while for NATO service no award or recognition presently is given. In that spirit, I put

forward this resolution in the hope that it will meet with the approval of the House.
Honours and decorations are bestowed upon persons by a grateful country to show the high respect due to such persons by reason of their having made some contribution to the common good beyond that required. These usually take the form of a star or a medal which is worn to signify the honour. A number of awards have been available in Canada, historically at least, since 1812. The government of Canada issued awards to Canadian servicemen back as far as 1866 and 1870 during the Fenian raids. They were awarded for service in the Sudan in the period 1884 to 1885. They were awarded for service in the Northwest in 1885, for service in South Africa in the period 1899 to 1902, for overseas service in World War I, and for voluntary service in the period 1939 to 1945.
Subsequently, there has been an award for service in the Korean war which involved service of one day in Korea or 28 days afloat. There is the UN Korea medal, and the UN Emergency Force medal for service on the Egyptian-Israeli border. There are also UN medals available for three months' service in the Congo, 30 days' service in Lebanon, three months' service in New Guinea, six months' service in India and Pakistan, 60 days' service in Yemen, 90 days' service in Cyprus, 90 days' service in India-Pakistan, and 90 days' service in Indochina. Although there are other awards, these are the principal ones. I have described them tonight to make clear to hon. members that a NATO service medal would certainly be within the tradition of our country. In this spirit, and without wanting to take too much time, I would urge hon. members to give support to this resolution.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to say to the mover of this motion that it is in fact one of the more thoughtful things that has been done in this chamber with regard to serving Canadian armed forces personnel during the 10 or 12 years I have been here. I commend him for it. I should like to indicate to him that I take some pride in being a spokesman from this side of the House in support of the motion he has placed before us.
The hon. member has gone through the historic background with some thoroughness and obviously with some concern. He has clearly outlined the precedents for such a motion. It is a matter of regret to many us that the Department of National Defence, at least the people on the civilian side of the department, did not move in this direction a long time ago. The subject put forward and embraced by this motion, of course, is not new. It is not novel to the hon. member who proposes it.
Although I am sure the hon. member is aware of this, he has presented the motion in a very thoughtful and courteous way. This is the type of motion which we can readily accept. I think the government would be doing a service to the mover, to the chamber and to all Canadians if it were to give this motion and its very worthy subject the consideration it deserves.
There is another aspect of this matter which I think should be mentioned. I hope I do not get away from the subject matter in raising it. I suggest there is a very real question of urgency involved. If the concept is good, let us

accept it now. Let us do everything we can with respect to this bill and urge upon the government the necessity and urgency of moving on this suggestion. Let us get it into place so that members of the armed forces who have served on the land, in the air and on the water might be the recipients of this honour from the government and from Canadians.
There is a sense of urgency because at the rate we are going with respect to the Canadian armed forces, we will not have a Canadian armed force in another three or four years, in view of the enormous difficulty that seems to be arising with respect to one of our principal contributions to NATO, namely, the LRPA program. We have the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) saying it is not their problem, and that the $200 million required by Lockheed must come from National Defence. National Defence says they have only $50 million. The Minister of Supply and Services said we must make up our minds by the end of this month or there will be no LRPA; they will cancel the program and put the contract back in the drawer or else bring to an end Canada's involvement in this form of military activity with respect to continental and NATO defence.
I inject this note of urgency because, like the distinguished mover of this motion, many of us are very concerned. We are concerned that we should always give the type of recognition that is necessary for service. Service is always distinguished, and we must not lose sight of that. There is urgency because we might not have an armed force in another two or three years. Going back to the long time it took us to erect memorials in recognition of the contribution made by our armed forces personnel since the Korean war-and I will just stay with those who lost their lives at sea-let me point out that we had no difficulty accommodating merchant seamen and naval personnel who lost their lives in the First World War, in the Second World War or in action in Korea. But in the intervening years between the First and Second World Wars, and between the Second World War and the Korean war, many of our Canadian armed forces personnel died in the line of duty and it took us a long time to give recognition to the contribution of their life that these men made. We have only had it for the last two or three years in the form of an anchor at Point Pleasant park in Halifax. We should have had it 25 or 30 years ago.
I suggest to hon. members that the motion should be dealt with and the government should give consideration to it this year, not in 20 or 30 years' time. Let us do it while the men who served with distinction in the NATO forces in Europe, on the Atlantic and in the air space over the north Atlantic are with us. I think it is something we can all support. I bring into this matter a note of urgency because of the necessity of doing it now while men whom we are attempting to honour can receive with distinction and pride the type of medal or ribbon that is being suggested by the mover of the motion. We support it, and hope the government will accept the amendment which gets around the procedural difficulty and that this chamber can very quickly, in the next few minutes, advance this matter to the point where the government can recognize the motion in the hope that some time in 1976, or perhaps while our
NATO Service Award
present governor general is still functioning and active he can present the first of these awards. We commend the mover, we support the motion, and I hope the government will utilize the next few minutes to give some indication that it is prepared to accept it and move with it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to give our support to this motion. We commend the hon. member for bringing it in, and even more we commend him on his success in getting it through.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my minister who is visiting Canadian troops on exercise in Norway, I am very happy to inform the House that the government accepts the principle of this motion. I want to add my personal congratulations to the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) for proposing the motion. I would also like to express to him our gratitude for his interest in members of the armed forces. I am also very grateful to him for the change which he made in the wording of the motion, because there are inherent difficulties in its implementation. I want to point out two or three of these difficulties and to emphasize that I am not doing this to take up time. I will not be very long.
First of all, as the hon. member himself pointed out, the proliferation of awards does tend to reduce the value of existing awards and care will have to be taken in the implementation of this motion to see that that does not happen with existing awards in the armed forces. Consideration will also have to be given to the position of our forces serving in NATO vis-a-vis the forces of other countries serving in NATO, because several years ago-I believe it was in 1968-NATO discussed the possibility of having a NATO award for forces from member countries serving with NATO. The reaction among the various nations at the time was pretty negative, so the idea was dropped. However, this will be a Canadian award for Canadian servicemen.
Another point I would like to make is that there may indeed be some sentiment in the armed forces against the implementation of additional awards, and I think it would not be a good augury for the proposed award if it should become an object of controversy among the members whom it is intended to honour. I want to stress, also, that as I see it, at least, this is an in house award, not an additional award for bravery but a service award which would be presented within the armed forces to members of the armed forces. However, on balance the government supports the purpose and intent of the motion and I recommend to the House its speedy adoption.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the distinguished parliamentary secretary would entertain a rather brief question.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: I welcome the government's attitude with respect to this bill and again extend my congratulations to the distinguished member for York Centre. In reference to this being a Canadian award to Canadian service personnel, has it been taken into consideration that

March 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
from time to time non-Canadians serve in an operational capacity with Canadians within the NATO context? Would the Canadian government consider extending to that relatively rare handful of people-nevertheless they are there permanently on officer exchange programs, and so on- their inclusion in connection with the award of a service ribbon or medal?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member but I am afraid I cannot give him a definitive answer. It seems to me that there would be a problem of protocol since this country would be making awards to citizens of other countries, and I suspect that there would have to be consultation between the governments involved. I think it is a matter which would have to be subject to negotiation with other countries before it could even be considered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does it please the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be a disposition to call it six o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.23 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violence and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my understanding that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-

liams) would like to offer certain comments as to the procedural acceptability of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North. I wonder if the House would agree to let this matter stand over until tomorrow, at three o'clock, at which time Mr. Speaker will hear arguments pro and con the acceptability of this amendment. Meanwhile the House could go on debating the motion for second reading of Bill C-83. Is this agreed?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, when intervening, I rose to reserve the rights of the government, and it may not be I who will speak to the amendment. I hope that is acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is so agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, before I was so politely interrupted at five o'clock I tried to make two points, namely that this bill lacks provisions concerning our native peoples and provisions concerning hard drugs in Canada.
When he began his remarks the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) elucidated some of the lofty ideals which he hoped this bill would meet in improving our criminal justice system. An ideal to which he and, I am sure, all hon. members subscribe is the ideal of the independence of the judiciary. I ask the minister to read again the answer of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) as reported on page 11457 of Hansard for March 3. I know the minister has acted in good faith and is making a serious attempt to inquire into the matter.
I think every hon. member should examine carefully the answer made on March 3 by the Minister of Public Works in response to a question by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I have read the record with care. That is the only incident to which I draw the attention of hon. members. I think the minister and hon. members ought to be concerned about it. I trust that despite any consultations in which the minister may engage he will give serious consideration to what the Minister of Public Works said on March 3 in answer to the hon. member for Calgary North. May I put on record once more the answer to the hon. member for Calgary North. The Minister of Public Works said:
I had a conversation, also, with the Associate Chief Justice of Quebec, along, as I discovered, with a great many other public spirited citizens who had taken part in trying to effect a solution to a rather difficult and, to some degree, unprecedented problem. The hon. Mr. Justice Mackay has suggested that my intervention, whatever it may have been-and he does not make any suggestion as to what it was-did not have the desired effect.
To be fair, the minister disclaimed any intention to influence the judge's decision. Nevertheless, any member reading that answer must question if such intervention is consistent with an independent judiciary, of which the Minister of Justice spoke so eloquently. Is it consistent with one of the objects of the legislation? Is it right and necessary for the Minister of Justice to question the actions of another minister?

I turn now to gun control. Despite what the hon. member for Calgary North said this afternoon, I fail to see language in this bill which says that rifles or weapons must be registered. Such provisions in this bill are licensing provisions and ownership provisions. All hon. members have received much mail from those interested in gun sports. It is important to consider the objects of worth-while organizations; incidentally many of their worth-while recommendations are contained in the bill.
I have before me a brief from the B.C. Wildlife Federation. It is on gun control. In bold type we are told, in the brief, that all firearms owners should be licensed. This bill does what the B.C. Wildlife Federation asks, and what many gun clubs in Canada ask. I was urged personally not to touch on the question of gun registration. I say that the government is to be congratulated for a reasoned approach to firearms control.
I have read the bill through. Largely, it is sensible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Did I go too far?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You had better modify that.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Although I have some reservations about parts of the bill, I say that the principle of this gun legislation is sound. At a time like this some credit should be given to members of the public who had considerable influence and worked very hard to see some change made in gun laws. Mr. and Mrs. Slinger had a tragedy in their family as a result of firearms killing. Their member, the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne), has been active in this matter. It is to his credit that we now see brought to fruition a significant change in the law.
We can also congratulate a lady from British Columbia, Mrs. Maggie Burtinshaw, whose son met with a tragedy. These people, Mr. and Mrs. Slinger and Mr. and Mrs. Burtinshaw, did not hide or go away to suffer their tragedies. They had a feeling for the Canadian community. They wanted to do something so that other tragedies would not occur.
We in this House very often argue statistics on the question of gun control. What percentage was shot by rifle, what percentage was shot by handguns? The real question is the human tragedy. It is not statistics. It is the personal story of people like Mrs. Burtinshaw and Mr. and Mrs. Slinger who had the courage, out of their tragedies, to come to parliament to make sure that similar tragedies are not repeated. This House should congratulate those individuals in particular for their efforts in terms of trying to provide some safety in the area of gun control for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I also wish to congratulate the coroner from the city of New Westminster, Mr. Doug Jack, who a long time ago started to be concerned about this. He investigated 26 homicides in the New Westminster coroners' district. He found that 24 were as a result of firearms.


An hon. Member:: Is he a doctor?
Measures Against Crime


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: He is an ex-police officer. He was concerned that the recommendations of coroner's juries which have been made over and over for the past ten, 15 or 20 years were never reflected in legislation. He could not understand why. I can understand why. When I came to parliament in 1972 I just had to read my mail coming from various gun clubs, continually arguing there should be no change made under any circumstances.
That position has been modified over the years. We can congratulate most of the people in the shooting sports for a rational approach to the question of gun control. In fact their positions have become modified. Some of us who came to this House with a firm position with regard to the registration of weapons have modified that position. There has been a meeting of minds to a very large extent on the question of gun control.
You cannot avoid looking at some statistics on the effectiveness of the question of gun control. In Canada the handgun is the agent for about 10.4 per cent of our homicides. That is not a high percentage, but you must consider that the handgun is a restricted weapon in Canada. In the United States, where it is largely unrestricted, 54 per cent of homicides occur as a result of the handgun. When you refer those figures to Canada, we are doing the same with long rifles that they are doing in the United States. There is no more cogent argument that controls work when you compare the two cultures which have some similarity. Where we control the weapon, we reduce the extent of homicide.
It is important to remember that in Canada the firearm of one kind or another is the agent used in about 44 per cent of the homicides. Something like 50 per cent of those homicides are domestic. When you sift through these domestics you reach the conclusion that there are preventable homicides as a result of the negligent distribution of firearms in Canada among people who should not have access to them. That is what this legislation is designed to do. For enshrining that principle, our party will support it.
We have some reservations, however, in terms of what the legislation does not do. There are some very special problems with rural and native people in Canada. Native people, particularly in the north, have a severe problem in terms of their survival in that climate without the use of the rifle.
If the issuing officers in the north have a standard that is the same as that in the south, there could be a very severe prejudice to native people. Our party will suggest there should be guidelines drawn for the use of the rifle by that special group of people who need the rifle to survive. For example, we may have a case of an indictable offence in the north where a native person, or someone working in the north, is convicted. Without the use of his weapon his livelihood is finished. Therefore there has to be some flexibility and exception under the terms of the legislation in that area.
I see the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in the Chamber. I am hoping that the government will give consideration, if not to amending the legislation, to setting forth some very careful guidelines for the licensing officials in the north and in rural areas so that people who require a weapon for survival are not deprived of it frivolously or through the prejudice of a licensing officer. It may be we

March 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
will have to apply different standards in different parts of the country. That is something we have to recognize.
I am disappointed in another area. One of the recommendations continually made by firearms groups such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Canadian Wildlife Federation is on the question of mandatory competency tests and training prior to the issuance of a licence to purchase a rifle.
I examined the legislation carefully. I cannot see any provision whereby some form of training or competency testing is required. This is a fairly severe weakness in the gun control legislation. Our party will propose to amend this legislation in accordance with recommendations by groups like the Canadian Wildlife Federation and the B.C. Wildlife Federation to encourage the responsible use of weapons, and the training and competency tests that are so necessary.
There was a recommendation by the Canadian Wildlife Federation which I think is attractive and which, I am sorry to say, the government has not seen fit to adopt. That is with respect to delay in purchase. A person wanting to purchase a rifle can simply walk in and pick it up if he meets the ownership licensing provision. In some cases a tragedy could be averted if there were a 24 hour delay in delivery of the weapon, if a person has an illegal purpose for the weapon or is emotionally unstable at the time of purchase.
There are a number of areas where recommendations by the Wildlife Federation and people involved in shooting sports have not been adopted. I hope the government will take a second look at amendments this party will be proposing in those areas.
I am delighted, of course, that the legislation ends mail order sales of weapons.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member might permit a question solely for the purpose of ensuring that the record is correct. I draw his attention to clause 106.8 of the provisions which allows the Solicitor General to enter into agreement to maximize the co-ordination with provincial laws relating to game hunting and firearm safety training.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There might be some provision for entering into agreements with provincial authorities, but it seems to me that the government could provide leadership in this area. There is nothing to prevent the federal government taking the lead in terms of competency tests. I don't see that there is any jurisdictional problem. It could have been set forth as one of the prerequisites in connection with the licensing provision. However, I appreciate that there is a capacity to enter upon agreements later under the provision to which the minister has referred. I understand from my respected friend from Regina-Lake Centre that the minister could do it under the migratory birds legislation.
In any event, in summary, though we have some reservations about the gun control legislation we think it is a useful first step. It does incorporate the major principles we have been seeking to incorporate, and it goes a good distance toward accommodating those interested in the shooting sports and the hunting field who are so concerned

about the licensing of weapons. Licensing, it seems to me, is a small price to pay by those in the shooting sports who have a legitimate purpose in using these weapons. It is a routine arrangement and one which, I imagine, will be complied with in order to protect that sport and its respectability, while preventing those who should not have weapons from possessing them.
Before embarking on new legislation it is wise to take a look at legislation presently on the statute books. As things are now, a person can walk out of a mental hospital suffering from a paranoic delusion, buy a long-barrelled rifle and shoot whoever he is paranoid about. At present there is nothing to prevent such an occurrence. How many fatalities have resulted from these and similar circumstances?
We have been talking about statistics and, I admit, statistics can become boring. But over and over again I read in newspapers of homicides which, under this legislation, might have been prevented. Obviously it will not solve this problem. People will still be able to obtain weapons from the black market. Nevertheless there is a real chance that an unstable or emotionally disturbed person will be unable to obtain weapons. Some people ask, "Why don't you control the possession of knives?" Well, there is always a point at which one stops. They might as well ask why one is allowed to buy shoes or boots without a licence. After all, people are sometimes kicked to death. The fact is that the gun is the most dangerous weapon because it takes only the pressure of an index finger to cause death.
The statement that people kill people and that guns do not kill people does not stand up to serious examination. I could quote item after item in newspapers to illustrate the point I am making. Here is a heading, "Labourer kills wife, then self". This man had been under psychiatric care. Under this legislation he need not have had access to a weapon had the licensing officer been informed. Here is another heading, "Elderly Man kills Son-in-Law". This was the case of a senile person; the weapon he used would have been removed had the relevant information come to the attention of the licensing officer.
I read of another case where a man was shot to death after a dispute over the digging of worms, of all things. In a resulting argument one of the parties obtained a weapon and shot the other. The person was obviously emotionally disturbed; if there had been a history of instability the legislation we are considering might have prevented this homicide. There are, of course, the classic tragedies which occurred in Ottawa and Brampton involving two boys, both obviously unstable. One might argue over whether or not this legislation would have prevented those two incidents, but there is a clear chance that it might have done so. It is surely incumbent upon the House to try to reduce homicides and the price to pay, that is, an application to a licensing authority, is small indeed.
I wish to deal now with the subject of wire tapping. We fought this battle in 1973 and now we are back fighting it again. The Minister of Justice suggested that those who criticize the changes in the wire tapping bill are raising doubts about our police forces. I have not seen a bigger red herring in this House for a long time. Look at the report of a Law Reform Commission, a report which the government paid a great great deal of money to obtain; it is true hon.
March 8, 1976

gentlemen opposite paid very little attention to the recommendations contained in it. I will read page 61 dealing with the question of the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in courts of law.
Rules of evidence are unlikely to prove very effective in controlling police behaviour. However, the courts must be able to protect the integrity of the adjudicative process. Therefore evidence should be excluded if it was obtained in such a manner that its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and in effect render the judicial process, which ultimately is designed to further the aims of the penal system, self-defeating.
This is a law and order bill. It should mean law and order for you, for me, and for the police too. I see no reason why the police should be rewarded by permission to introduce illegally obtained evidence. The law is for all of us, not just for some of us. This proposal does nothing to reduce the crime rate, but if we allow illegal evidence to be produced it does a great deal to bring the judicial system into disrepute.
Another provision the mir ister seems very keen on is the removal of the notification process. With the greatest respect I do not think he understood why that provision was put there in the first place. It was meant to provide a check ;n this exceptional area so that the police would not abuse their right to wiretap and so that, ultimately, an innocent citizen would know his communications had been intercepted. This was the method by which parliament decided to reduce the number of unnecessary interceptions.
Wire tapping is not a normal police procedure. Look at the statistics in the United States and you will find evidence of the most amazing kinds of fishing expedition which have revealed nothing except the bedroom behaviour of all kinds of people. The United States experience of wire tapping goes to the roots of the system under which we live. It profoundly affects the right to privacy.
If we remove the right to privacy we must do so carefully and in a manner consistent with the rights the public has traditionally learned to expect by way of protection from big government. The two provisions the minister proposes in this area represent the most serious erosion of the kind of rights to which we are accustomed under the British judicial system, which I am sure we all respect as among the finest in the world. I hope the Minister of Justice will give serious consideration to withdrawing those changes. Let me tell him that the members of this party and, I hope, most of the opposition are going to fight them with all the vigour at our command.
We have little to argue about the provisions regarding dangerous offenders. It is a rationalization of the program. There is a useful change, as I understand it, in the sense that only violent sexual offenders qualify now for an indeterminate sentence, and that is an improvement over the old system. Nevertheless we are still faced with the problem of the discretion given prosecutors and attorneys general; the manner in which the section is applied can be abused substantially. I am therefore issuing the caveat regarding this section, perhaps for the guidance of attorneys general and prosecutors in this country, that they had better get together and have a conference and decide who
Measures Against Crime
is going to be charged under the dangerous offenders provisions, and who is not.
At the moment the majority of people who are presently serving time in Canada come from British Columbia, and this is because of some very effective prosecutions in that province. Nevertheless it is clear that those sections were not being applied properly across the country. It seems to me that a national conference of some kind on the application of the dangerous offenders provisions is fundamental to seeing that the sections are applied fairly.
The bill also deals with changes in the operation of our prisons and parole. I should like to quote from the minister's statement which he issued on February 24;
-a revised construction program that will accelerate the replacement of large, obsolete maximum security institutions by smaller, more manageable institutions and the reduction of population in the existing medium institutions-
Although the minister talks of reducing the prison population there is no question, if one examines the bill, that the prison population will increase. I see the Solicitor General shaking his head. If we amend the mandatory parole provisions regarding violent offenders as the bill provides, and the capital punishment bill provides for 25 year mandatory sentences-though that is not as important in terms of numbers as the general parole changes- then I would be happy to be enlightened if this does not mean that we will be increasing the population of our prisons very substantially. So these pious statements about reducing the population of our penal institutions in Canada, quite frankly I do not think will wash when one examines the approach being taken to sentencing.


William Warren Allmand: They have to do with non-violent crimes.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Another facet connected with parole that has been of concern to me is the lack of consultation with those who most intimately know the subjects for parole. It is very easy for a prisoner to get himself ready for a parole hearing, and what happens is that the glib and articulate wind up out on the street while the inarticulate remain inside, when quite often the reverse should be the case. We should consider having consultations with other inmates in the institution and with the guard staff who have more day-to-day contact with the inmates of institutions.
There is not much doubt that one of the reasons, why the penal system has come into such terrible disrepute has been the mistakes that have been made in the issuance of parole. They have been horrible mistakes; there is no getting away from that. The problem continues to be in the granting of parole-who gets parole, and the review process that presently exists. I submit that the kind of consultation that should be carried out-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: May I thank the House. I will try to close my remarks briefly and not take advantage of the generosity extended to me. If I may get off the subject of parole for a moment and back to the question of what we
11598
March 8, 1976

Measures Against Crime
do about the dangerous offender who will now spend 25 years in prison without eligibility for parole if the murder bill passes in its present form, I contend it is time we take a look at our maximum security institutions. I suggest that what we need is a super maximum security prison for that kind of prisoner, and there may be only ten of them in each of the maximum security prisons that we have. Certainly the institutions we have at the moment are not doing what they should. Morale is at rock bottom in those institutions and a war is continuing between the Solicitor General, the administration, the guards, and inmates. No one has been able to bring them together.
What is the answer to this situation? The answer is not to make the same mistakes again. First of all, in terms of morale we have to examine the question of raising the salaries of people who work in our prisons. They do a difficult and dangerous job and in British Columbia it is one that is not paid very highly, being just above British Columbia's minimum wage. I give people who go into our prisons every day full credit for doing a dangerous job and a great service to our community. But that is only part of the story, Mr. Speaker.
The rest of the story has to do with the whole civil service structuring of the operation of the prisons, and in particular with segregating the kinds of prisoners we have. For example, we should not have sexual offenders and stool pigeons in the same institution as drug traffickers and violent offenders. There is neither rhyme nor reason to that.
The minister has talked about his new program of smaller institutions. I read the Hall report when I first came to the House in 1972 and it seems I am still reading the same report; there has been no change. We do not have any crash priority program to phase out existing facilities and construct new facilities, and until we have the public are not going to be satisifed with this kind of legislation as a means of dealing with those who are in maximum security prisons.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not going to solve the crime problem in this country-let there be no mistake about that. There are major areas not dealt with by the bill. The only preventive legislation is that having to do with gun control. We have to get at other problems such as hard drug trafficking and native crime in Canada. These areas remain untouched. We also have to deal with disparity of income. An examination of the crime rates in urban areas reveals that that is where the highest rates are. It is also where you find the highest disparity of income. That is what breeds crime. It breeds crime through envy, through unemployment, and through child abuse. There is ample evidence of massive child abuse and this is not being controlled.
This party will support some of the sentencing changes because the public are entitled to feel secure. They have a right to be concerned about safety and rising crime rates, rates that are clearly demonstrable. But until we get to the cause of crime which, as I say, is urban proverty, drugs, and psychopathic behaviour that must be identified at an early age, we will not make a serious dent in what is essentially a cultural problem in Canada.
[Mr. Leggatt.)


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-83 is aimed at protecting Canadian society from perpetrators of violent crimes and others. And the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) told us this afternoon about the different subjects dealt with in this bill. I think that bill C-83 deals with several matters. It is some kind of an omnibus bill. It deals with firearms, parole, penitentiaries, jails, correction institutions and wiretapping.
Mr. Speaker, at first we should expect a bill that would ensure to everyone the security they expect in Canada. After reading the bill more carefully, I realize that the technocrats who drafted it acted once more against common sense. This bill will allow the Minister of Justice to seize arms belonging to honest people under the pretext of protecting them while more freedom will be given to well-known criminals who are threatening the safety of all Canadian citizens. The bill should be entitled "Rifles in jail and criminals at large". This government proposes a stricter control on firearms, but who will be affected by this control, Mr. Speaker? Certainly not the criminal element which is getting larger every day. Once more the good will pay for the bad. In fact, the only group that will be directly and efficiently affected by this control is the majority of honest people owning an arm for their personal use or their pleasure. This will be one more noose around their neck, one more restriction, a control that will not improve by one half of one per cent the safety in our country.
Mr. Speaker, can we believe that this minister will be able to control all the firearms owned by criminals in Canada and elsewhere. Of course not. It would be a marvellous opportunity for criminals to operate in another field: the illegal trade of firearms that will add to that of drugs, prostitution and all other crimes that are increasingly destroying our society.
The point was made previously that the bill would reduce the number of gun accidents. I am convinced that the small percentage or real accidents caused by firearms will certainly not be reduced one tenth of one percent when there is absolute control. We never had such control since the beginning of Canada, and I believe total control as proposed in the bill before us is exaggerated. I suggest it will not reduce in any the number of simple accidents, or even suicides for that matter.
If someone wishes to commit suicide with a firearm, he will find the way to buy a gun and kill himself. But this is disturbing everybody. This is another case of restricting honest citizens' activities, without stopping in no way those who should be stopped, gangsters in other words. It is not good policy in my view to pass such general legislation. I am for a certain amount of control, or some kind of registration for certain types of firearms. I even accept an intelligent control of firearms, a restricted licence. I wish to explain this, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to businessmen, travellers, bank managers, store managers, credit union managers, managers of every other financial institutions that must handle funds day and night. Those people must own licences. In my view, everyone in an important public function should be licenced to carry an arm if he so wishes. This will put him on an equal footing with his

aggressor. These days, one must be able to face an aggressor, because it is the only way to protect one's life. This should be the case with drivers of every public vehicule, while on the job. Why do so many honest citizens fall victims to their aggressors? Simply because they were attacked by a well-armed individual. If they had been armed, if they had been holding a firearm licence while on the job, most probably the murderer would have been the first to fall. This would have relieved society, without the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) being able to save the murderer at the victim's expense. Everyone should have the right to self defence against the one who wants to take his life. That is the right to live, Mr. Speaker. This is the right that honest people have to keep their life.
Several people will be surprised by such a liberalization, but it is the only way, Mr. Speaker, to have law and order respected as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) advocated this afternoon, in this era of liberalism we live in, when the greatest offenders are favoured by the greatest judiciary protection ever seen in Canada. We demand that protection for the honest and peaceful man be guaranteed. Is it asking too much from our Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker? In the ridiculous judicial system we live in, government authorities continually pity our criminals while thousands of victims are left without any protection, when their name is not even mentioned.
When shall we have legal reform that gives priority to the victims of criminals? Today, we worry about the criminals, but we never think about their thousands of victims. They are never mentioned. Let them fend for themselves, let them organize themselves. For instance, we show concern for the criminals, we think that we do not give them enough, that we should build houses for them and allow them to go out two or three times a week, and send them women at least every night to console them, but we never talk about the thousands of victims of these same criminals. Today, we multiply paroles and allow the killers sentenced to life imprisonment-the term is "life imprisonment"-to commit one, two, three and even four murders, or we allow the numerous organized escapes which have well-known consequences.
The first reform should therefore be to consider the conditions of the victims of crime, which are often very painful. The government has introduced no legislation to compensate the victims. We have talked about this quite often, but there is still no legislation to help and compensate these victims. What is the minister waiting for? When shall we stop orienting our justice simply towards the rehabilitation of criminals, and bring help to the hundreds of victims which remain marked and often handicapped for life. On the contrary, the minister seems to want to give criminals a medal.
When shall we finally amend our legislation so as to give more protection and security to police officers when they are dealing with criminals? Our police officers have to wait for the bandit to shoot at them before they can shoot back. This is equivalent to condemning police officers to suicide. And what about police officers who appear as witnesses in criminal cases. The evidence of the criminal is more highly considered than that of the police officer. I have occasionnally followed the work of certain police
Measures Against Crime
officers in murder cases, and I came out of the court disillusionned, because our laws give all the protection wanted to the murderers and nothing to the police officers. They are often ridiculed. After such events, we have a tendency to blame the judge, but it is our laws that we should blame.
I have myself often had the tendency to be dissatisfied with certain judges, but when examining the whole facts, I realized that the laws were responsible after I had discussed the matter with the judge and after he had told me: I could not do otherwise. The laws must be corrected. There is a lack in that respect at present in our laws.
If we want order, we must first protect those who are appointed to maintain order. I heard someone say earlier that policemen must come under the same terms as others. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. Policemen are men of law who must not be considered as plain civilians. They have rights. They have powers. They must be a tool for them. This bill proposes to increase the number of parole commissioners to 26. I will say in passing-without taking too much time although I would like very much to discuss those famous paroles more at length-that most members recognize today that paroles have become ridiculous; I wonder whether it is changed today or if we still continue to release all prisoners to allow them to go and commit other murders or armed robberies.
Increasing the number of commissioners will not solve the problem. It will be solved when the government will do something-I say the government because we know that the minister always has the last word, just like the Solicitor General always has the last word and may release whomever he wants.
I read in the paper that a guy sentenced to life did four years in prison. Imagine how painful it must be for a murderer to do four years in prison! The Solicitor General can do that, or the minister can intervene in paroles. There is no need to ask ourselves why today we see so many robberies and murders; it is because of the famous paroles. We want to rehabilitate prisoners. But when a person has been sentenced to 5, 10 or 15 years in jail, let him serve his time. If he has been sentenced to 15 years in prison, let him stay there for 15 years!
I say that parole should not even exist. We should instead give a just sentence. Some judges, considering that parole is so easy to obtain, say to themselves: We will give a criminal 10 years in prison, and he will serve four. But that is not right. If we want fair justice, let us give a sentence of three or four years, but let the prisoner serve it. We should not follow the example of unions in wage settlements. Organized workers say: We will ask for $8 to get $5. That is not justice. If it is three years, it is three years, if it is five, it is five.
When the person convicted has been sentenced to five years, it is not the role of a board, in spite of the judge's decision, to release the prisoner after two years in jail. Then why do we have judges? Thus we do not need judges any more; let us ask immediately the opinion of the parole board to see how long a prisoner must stay in jail. I think this is ridiculing our judicial system. As long as the appointment of commissions or judges will be political, and this is true in any area, we will have political results.
11600

March 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
In the province of Quebec, we would have had for the first time the opportunity to have an efficient Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime, but because of the weakness of our legislation, stemming from the definition of the jurisdiction, all the main witnesses in this inquiry are today beyond the reach of the commission. They are under sunny skies while their victims are still here. I wonder whether the federal government has not complicated matters and taken the risk of restricting the powers of our provincial commission.
Everybody acknowledged that the work undertaken by the commission of inquiry was positive and ingenious. This work was within its jurisdiction but federal intervention was required to stop it all. I wonder if the amendment moved by the federal government will not stand once more in the way of this provincial commission. Could it be because the commission was too successful when it began to unearth political machinations by the ruling party, which was not a pretty sight to watch and an even more disturbing thing to hear? When the most notorious names of the underworld are among the campaign managers of a major political party, what more can you expect? I am asking the minister whether the job of the 26 men board will be to check the work occasionally too efficient of our commission?
It is a question that all Canadians are asking themselves after the legal incidents that took place in Quebec these past few months. The people of Quebec have lost confidence in the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and have suspicions about Canadian justice. It is this government's responsibility to restore the confidence they used to have in our justice. And surely it is not by opposing 90 per cent of the people that some ministers will restore their image.
Can you believe that you will accomplish something if you restrict the number of firearms among honest people, fine them if one ever happens to forget or neglect to bring back his shotgun or museum piece? When one sees how this government acts, one wonders who are really guilty of crimes perpetrated in Canada. The honest man or the criminal? Why is there so much violence in Canada? Is the government not primarily responsible for this violence with all these anti-social laws that were put forward in recent years in this House?
Let us bring forward more human laws and violence will decrease! Let us legislate for the Canadian people instead of doing it only because of high finance. Let us stop fiddling with protective policies or indulging in partisan profitability and we will have order and peace that the minister is wishing. Everyday, this government acts in a discriminatory way towards the poor by not providing them with minimum wages. The government further promotes violence among working people and low income heads of families by allowing and contributing to interest rates of 12 to 40 per cent, depending on the credibility of the borrower.
All this is designed to safeguard the interests of those who fill up the electoral funds of parties elected by big wheels. Therefore it is useless to strengthen control on weapons held by poor people if this government keeps on shining up its economic weapon, the worst of all. As

regards investigations and firearms control, I hope at least that the government will give this responsibility to the various police forces, thus avoiding hiring a whole army of control agents to go around the country.
Wiretapping was discussed a while ago: the representative of the New Democratic Party said he was against it. I am for it. Anyone who is against wiretapping has something to hide. It is the supreme technique for policemen who want to make a serious inquiry. They could very well bug my office, my house, everywhere, it would not bother me, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: But it would me, Mr. Speaker, though I have nothing to hide: but it would annoy me, disturb me.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: It would not bother me in the least. I am not talking about wiretapping to see what goes on in a home, but wiretapping criminals. I say that, for our policemen, it is the only sturdy tool, to enable them to do good work or make a conclusive inquiry.
We have seen it at work in Quebec, during the inquiry on organized crime. To my mind, the government must continue to allow policemen to use wiretapping when dealing with murders, the underworld, drugs and all other crimes committed today.
Mr. Speaker, there are many clauses in this legislation whose adoption I would have been in favour; but since we have to do with an omnibus bill and since on the other hand there is some clauses I cannot accept, I will certainly not vote for the whole bill, because I could not swallow such a piece which is too big for the moment. I would have liked this bill to be divided in two or three parts; this would have been easier for us to dissect and to vote on each of these parts.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Wirtdsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-83 is a very important piece of legislation. As its title indicates, it is an act for the better protection of Canadian society against the perpetration of violent and other crime. It deals with matters which are considered crucial by Canadians at the present time.
I am sorry that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has already left as I want to say that I think he was being somewhat unrealistic in attacking the bill because it does not deal with all the causes of crime, as he charged. As I think all members of the House know, it is questionable if legislation ever really gets to the causes of crime at all and, if it does, it is even more questionable if it is criminal legislation that does so. Crime has broad roots, and obviously through legislation we can hardly grapple with crime in all its aspects. Yet this bill does come to a very realistic treatment of at least the effects of crime in our society today, and certainly proposes some solutions for the problems that we face.
What is important about the legislation is that it adjusts our criminal code still further to social change. If there is anything that is important about the law-and many things could be said to be of importance about it-perhaps the most important thing of all is the fact that law must constantly reflect the society that it has to govern. Law is not something that just comes from the sky; it is some-
March 8, 1976

thing that has to be worked out by people as the best rules to govern the conduct of people in society. That is more important in the case of criminal law than in any other form of law, and it is most important that that law keep constantly in touch with changes in society.
I think we have often come to think in recent years that changes in law following changes in society usually mean the loosening of law. That is often the case. We have seen changes in that direction and we have seen areas in which the criminal code has retreated, and undoubtedly we will see more of those. But as our life changes and becomes more complex we will also see many ways in which the law will become more restrictive. For instance, with the coming on the scene of the automobile we have had to develop a whole new class of laws that we have been strengthening in recent years, and here I mention laws to deal with intoxication while driving. Similarly with respect to the increasing prevalence of weapons, perhaps more important, with the increasing sophistication of weapons, it is necessary for us to adjust our laws.
Here we have a new measure in Bill C-83 which is largely restrictive in its application. Nevertheless it is highly justified on the basis of necessary adjustment to social change. I join those who have already congratulated the two ministers on having introduced this legislation. It is in general an excellent piece of legislation.
I really intended to speak largely about the matter of electronic eavesdropping, but I am glad to see the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has returned to his seat because I would like first to make a few comments about his address. I found his address so discursive and so disturbing that I decided I had to devote my initial remarks to some of the questions which he raised. I might have been tempted to refer to his speech as being marked by a scattergun approach if he had not himself presented us with a better metaphor this afternoon when he spoke about the tumbling mustard plant which is a native of the west, the one that spreads its seeds around. Certainly he spread a lot of seeds around this afternoon but I do not think any of them will germinate, because they are dead.
One thing that was especially lacking in his approach was his attempt to blame so much of crime-in fact one had the impression he blamed all crime today-on the federal government. It does not require a very sophisticated criminal law theory to adjust to the fact that there is shared responsibility in the law in Canada. The administration is largely under the control of the provinces even though much of the criminal law is made by the federal government. In fact if the hon. member were to care to look at his own province of Alberta I think he would find that there has been a large increase in crime in that province in recent years, probably larger than in many other provinces.
When governments are involved, we have to take provincial governments into account as well as the federal government. Actually as the hon. member for New Westminster indicated so well, the fact is that law, especially criminal law, is only one of the means of dealing with crime. Crime is a subject which cannot be wholly embraced by law and certainly not wholly in its causes.
Measures Against Crime
The main point made by the hon. member for Calgary North was that the bill should be severed. I was quite mystified by this for a few minutes, but then I realized that the official opposition really has not changed a bit. We on this side have been expecting great new things as a result of their leadership convention.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about your leadership convention.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I would be glad to give a speech on leadership at any time. You need it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Go ahead, tell us all about it.


Mr. Muir:: Tell us about Dr. Smith.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) has the floor.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Psychiatrists are obviously needed, judging by the comments I am hearing from the other side.


Robert Muir: That is why they have one at the head of the Liberal party.


Mark R. MacGuigan: With all the great questions facing us, the reason why the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) concentrated on this question of severing the bill into its various parts was because this is apparently the only matter on which the opposition can agree.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Careful what you say, Mark. Joe is here.


Robert Muir: Now we know why Smith beat the hell out of
you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I just felt I had to come back because there is so much to do in this House, as the opposition is proving.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: But I found the speech of the hon. member for Calgary North disturbing for none of these reasons. I found it disturbing because he was suggesting that for reasons of conscience the bill should be split. There was an undercurrent to his whole speech that there was a natural right to bear arms. He never squarely said this-he never squarely said anything in his speech-but it was implied. There was this undercurrent, a feeling throughout the whole of it that we had to protect the sacred natural right to bear arms. If that is to be the line the opposition takes in the House on this bill, this is going to be a very-


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, usually the hon. member gets right to the point of every bill, and I am a little shocked that he is straying in such an unacceptable way at this time. We are dealing with Bill C-83, and I hope he gets to the bill in the next minute or so.

March 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that that is a point of debate and not a point of order.


Mark R. MacGuigan: This is the first time I have ever seen the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) shrink from politics. Perhaps he should take advice from his provincial counterpart.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You know all about provincial politics, don't you?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I was talking about this unfortunate undercurrent, and I was saying that if this is going to mark the speeches of opposition members on this bill, this is going to be a sorry day for the Conservative party as well as for debate in this House.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Look at your own house and what is left of it.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I not only have my own conscience. I have to worry about you people too.


Robert Carman Coates: We don't need you as our conscience.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The theory of the right to bear arms is not a Canadian theory; it is not a British theory; it is an American theory, and it is part of the most revolutionary aspect of American life, the one part of American life which has been rejected by all Canadians looking at the United States from the very beginning of our history. We can say that we are not Americans because we refused to share that tradition. If that is the kind of argument hon. members opposite are going to make against this bill, if they want to have that kind of alien importation of American philosophy and to strike at the British and Canadian tradition-which members of their party have been so proud to uphold over the years-then I am very worried about the course of this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Just to refer to the various kinds of control which are provided by this bill with respect to firearms, I might mention providing stiffer sentences for most crimes involving guns, the permitting of police seizure of weapons which are likely to be used in an offence- which I think will prove to be a very valuable power- tighter regulations concerning both restricted and prohibited weapons, and perhaps the centerpiece of all these measures, the licensing of all gun owners and gun dealers. That is really the heart of the legislation.
In addition to that there is the program of the recall of all unwanted weapons and the program to promote greater legal responsibility for those who possess weapons. However, the heart of all this is the licensing of gun owners and gun dealers.
The kinds of arguments we heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Calgary North are really not very effective arguments with respect to gun control. Most Canadians today will agree that it is just as important that guns should be as controlled as automobiles. If uncontrolled both are dangerous things, and guns are much more dangerous than automobiles.

I do not think anyone can successfully make the argument before the Canadian public or this House that guns should not be subject to some form of licensing and that gun owners should not have to show a certain responsibility before they are given the privilege of using firearms, and it is indeed, a privilege. In Canada it is not a natural right. I do not know what the hon. member for Calgary North hoped to prove by repeating the phrase one gets from U.S. extremists that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I do not think we should have that kind of argument being used to oppose this bill. That will not win very many supporters for the hon. member who makes it.
I also want to say some words about the wiretapping provisions of the bill. When we approved the protection of privacy bill some years ago-1974 was the year the bill was proclaimed-the votes at that time indicated that most hon. members of this House believed that wiretapping was necessary in view of the increasing sophistication of criminals and criminal activity in our country. There seems to be no other way by which the police can be effective in dealing with criminals except through the use of devices which are of this degree of sophistication. However, even used by the police, wiretapping is somethng which is dangerous. It is sufficiently dangerous that it requires an unusually careful balancing of interests every time it is allowed, even when it is carefully controlled by law. It must be very carefully controlled and very carefully restricted so that it is always used in the public interest and does not get out of hand.
As chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs I may not have as much opportunity as I would wish in the forthcoming debate in the committee to express my viewpoint on this, so I want to do so here this evening, first with respect to the notice provision. We had an indication here from the minister today, and indeed from our general awareness of what is going on, that the police consider a problem to exist because of the provision that notice must be given to a person who has been wiretapped 90 days after the wiretapping is completed-after the investigation is completed, to put it more accurately- and that this is unduly hampering the police.
Although I have never seen it put this way, I suppose one might say that the exemption provisions which allow a judge to defer giving the notice, while they are broad enough to allow continuing investigation, are not broad enough to provide for continuing suspicion. I have some reservations about allowing notice to be deferred when we are proceeding only on the basis of continuing suspicion and when the investigation is actually finished. Yet we know there are people in our society who are sufficiently borderline in their activities that a particular investigation may be concluded by the police-and by any reasonable test the police might have to say before a judge that that investigation was completed-but they would not want to have notice given to that person to make him aware in a very direct way that he was being watched by the police. Perhaps we will have to take all this into account in committee. I have an open mind on it at the moment. But even if there is a problem not taken into account by existing law, that does not necessarily mean that no notice at all should be given. Perhaps the law could be changed in other ways, to require notice still in some circumstances.
March 8, 1976


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. gentleman, who was a distinguished dean before coming to this House, not agree that the judge who grants leave to wiretap should also be given the right to extend or abridge the time? Would this not be better than having the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) abruptly suggesting or requiring that notice be repealed?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to agree with the hon. member for Calgary North despite what I said earlier. I have considerable respect for his legal ability, and the action he proposes might be successfully embarked upon. Perhaps it would be better not to restrict notice to the judge who gave the original order, but that would be one way of solving the problem.
Another way would be to allow any judge broader powers for deferring notice. Now he must require that notice be given, except when the investigation is still continuing. Perhaps his power should be broadened so that the police can receive authorization not to give notice even over a long period of years. That might provide the protection they need. I fear that if we do not enact provisions which will provide the police with effective legal procedures for wiretapping, either they will not use wire-tapping, in which case there may be more criminal activity or, worse, they will resort to illegal wiretapping.
My second area of concern is with respect to the specification of crimes. I am prepared to listen to the government's case in committee, but I have in mind that the present law is the result of a motion moved by a government member in 1973. As I recall the vote, the motion carried 206 to 26 in favour of the existing law. However, as the minister said this afternoon, we must keep the law under constant surveillance to see that it adequately meets the needs of the times. If necessary we could bring in another amendment which would add more specific offences, rather than proceed with what is proposed at present, but if there is a case to be made for total coverage, I am prepared to listen.
I am especially concerned about government proposals with respect to derivative evidence. If the present law banned such evidence I would not feel quite as I do; but the present law does not ban the use of derivative evidence. As a result of a government motion, which carried 115 to 114 on December 4, 1973, we gave a judge power, in cases where the judge thought it was in the interest of justice, to allow derivative evidence to be presented in court. This was a reasonable compromise among the various positions. Some wanted any form of illegally obtained evidence to be available in court, even the direct evidence of the wiretap. On the other hand some would have extended the ban both to direct evidence and to all other evidence obtained from so-called indirect or derivative evidence.
In 1973, when the law was put in its present form by parliament, we gave the judge power to admit secondary evidence. Although there was a general rule against the admission of derivative evidence, we gave the judge power to make exceptions to that rule. Really, we did not give him much guidance in the legislation, and the matter was left to his complete discretion. It was in the sole discretion
Measures Against Crime
of the judge when such evidence was to be admitted as evidence. I voted in favour of the proposal at the time because I was concerned about the alternative.
It had been drawn to our attention, I believe by the NDP attorney general of British Columbia, that if we suppressed all such derivative evidence we would not be able to deal with a case in which the original, illegal wiretap had been undertaken, not by the police, but by some criminal group. If one criminal group listened to the conversations of another and the wiretap fell into the hands of the police, the police would not be able to use the wiretap taken by the criminals. That would have restricted investigatory procedures. Also, if the police were wiretapping for one crime, say a lesser crime, and in the course of the wiretap discovered evidence of a much more serious crime, like murder, the police would not be able to use such evidence. It would seem that the police would not have the legal authorization to do so. It was argued that if there were such a discrepancy as between two crimes, the police should be allowed to use evidence so gathered. For these reasons we gave the judge discretion.
I might say that my bias is strongly in favour of keeping that discretion with the judge. As the minister said this afternoon, one of the lynch pins of this legislation is judicial supervision. I think he was probably talking about judicial supervision with respect to wiretap authorization, but we should go further, since throughout the bill judicial supervision is an important aspect of our present way of controlling police action.
The minister suggested that one reason for changing the law is that the present rule produces delays at trial and exclusion of evidence. I am not particularly concerned about the exclusion of evidence. Delays at trial are a problem, but I do not think that they should weigh very heavily in the balance against the result if we gave the police carte blanche.
If the police are not wiretapping illegally, there is no need to amend the legislation. If they are wiretapping illegally, then we in this House want to know why. We do not want to give them any protection or encouragement in that regard, or allow them to use evidence obtained in that manner.
We have set out rules which allow the police to obtain evidence by electronic means. They are adequate, perhaps generous, for law enforcement purposes. If we were to allow the police, in cases when they do not follow laid-down procedures and obtain evidence illegally, still to get the fruits of those illegal procedures, we would make a very serious mistake. The matter at stake is not a small one.
The existing legislation provides for judicial discretion, and explicitly says that when there has been a mere mistake in procedure in obtaining authorization, such as when the police think they have obtained valid authority but have not, such a mistake is not to count against the police. That is not the kind of illegal wiretapping about which we are thinking. We are thinking about the case when the police decide not to apply for an authorization, by-pass the law and spurn the law and this House. We do not want to allow the police to act in that way.

March 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
I hope illegal police wiretapping is not a problem. If it is not, I am not sure that the reason advanced, namely, that to avoid delays at trial, is sufficient to offset the considerations on the other side. We are dealing with the protection of the public from injurious action by the police. The public need to be reassured that the police, their guardians, are themselves acting according to law.
We are all very much concerned about protection from criminals, and we have substantial apparatus for doing that. But if we cannot also be assured that the people who are protecting us from criminals are not themselves taking advantage of us, we shall have put ourselves in a most unfortunate position.
The Minister of Justice has given comfort to those who have reservations about the bill by observing that he will listen attentively and with an open mind to what is said in the House and in committee. We shall all be interested in pursuing a fruitful dialogue with him on these matters.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a better time to debate the government's proposed peace and security legislation. The members of my party welcome the opportunity to discuss this legislation and to discuss the kind of law necessary for restoring the confidence of our people in law and order.
In these days law and order are giving a good many Canadians a great deal of concern. One of the things we, as Canadians, have been proud of is that we have one system of justice that applies to everyone in this nation. As far as justice is concerned there are no second class citizens. What has given me concern, as I am sure it has most members of this House, especially those trained in the law, is the indication that there may have been some interference with the way that justice is administered in this country, and that there have been moves by members of this House that in effect bring justice into disrepute. In their minds Canadians are concerned that there are two sets of laws in this nation, one for some members of parliament and one for all other Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: That just is not good enough. It is not good enough for any member of this House. It is certainly not good enough for any member of the Progressive Conservative party in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: As I said earlier today in reply to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), who for some reason decided that he is the fountain of all wisdom and justice in this country, even in excess of that now available to the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), there are two forms of ethics as far as law in this country is concerned.
As a member of this House for close to 18 years, and having been trained in the law, I appreciate that there is absolutely no way, especially for a man trained in the law, under any circumstances to telephone a judge who is deliberating on a case, even so much as to ask when he is going to render his decision, because it may be presumed

that in some way you are interfering with his very real responsibilities.
Let me say something about judges. They are very lonely men. They are lonely because they assume a very special and sacred responsibility, to administer the law. They have no one to whom they can turn. In this particular instance Justice Mackay would not even have had the knowledge that is available to the public in his special privileged writings to the Minister of Justice if it were not for some chance that the information became public. What greatly concerns me as a member of parliament is how many other times that we do not know about when some judge in this country was contacted by a member of the executive and had something suggested to him, as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) said, to get him straightened out as to the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: There is only one way that any individual, be he a member of this House or anyone else, to get a judge straightened out as to the facts, and that is to take the stand in a courtroom and tell him what the facts are in his mind. That is the only way we can have a system of justice in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: I want to say to the hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) that even though at one time he may have been dean of a law school, he should not come into this House and try to be the conscience of the Progressive Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Earlier today the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woollians) said the foundations for the judicial system and penology of this country were laid by the Diefenbaker administration, in particular by the Hon. E. Davie Fulton who, for a long time, gave great lustre to the role of Minister of Justice. He gave us the foundation on which we are trying to build today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Indeed the parole system on which the Minister of Justice is today endeavouring to build in order to give people peace and security was the creation of the Hon. E. Davie Fulton when he was Minister of Justice. It was a tremendous achievement, and it can be a tremendous achievement in the future to bring peace and security to this nation. However, we have to build in a constructive, not destructive way. The hon. member for Calgary North today stated some of the reasons why he feels this legislation is not adequate to handle the job we feel has to be done if we are to have law and order and protection for the public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) pointed out the biggest gap that exists in this legislation when he said you would not even think there is a drug problem in this country, However, our penitentiaries are filled with people involved in one way or another
March 8, 1976

with drugs. This is one of the major problems facing the country today. Yet, as he says, we have nothing. I cannot imagine why this is being left out because it is one of the most serious problems we, as a parliament, have to grapple with if our children and their children are going to be able to live without the danger inherent in the drug trade as it exists today and without the major crime being created by drugs. We cannot walk away blindfolded as if it does not exist, any more than we can walk away from the two systems of justice that appear to be in existence at this moment in time in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: There is a lot of concern about certain aspects of this legislation. I want one fact to be clear. The hon. member for Calgary North never left the impression with me or any other member of this party that he was opposed to gun control, an impression which at least one member tried to give. There is no way that this party is against gun control. What we are in favour of are realistic controls, ff they are possible to perceive, that will give to those who use guns the right to continue their sport without at the same time building up a bureaucracy that takes away the kind of freedom that the government over and over again has taken away from Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: An article in the Truro Daily News points out that Canada has no gun control at the present time except for that in the Criminal Code and which the government has not done very much about until now. It states that Japan has the tightest gun control of any country in the world, yet there is in Japan as much crime and unlawful and disorderly conduct as in Canada. Therefore let us not feel that this is a panacea for curing the kind of crime we face today.
The minister suggests that crime in Canada is under control. Well, Mr. Speaker, if crime is under control here, everybody is in trouble! Crime is growing at an unprecedented rate in this country and much of the blame lies at the feet of the government for ignoring the problems of crime for so long-indeed, up to the day on which it brought in this legislation.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has done no one a favour by running around with his statement, associated with capital punishment, to the effect that if we do not play his game in the way he would like us to, he will pick up his toys and go and play by himself. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of law and order in this country the best thing which could happen would be for the Solicitor General to pick up his toys and go and play by himself somewhere else. What he has done to the morale in the penitentiary service is-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Criminal?


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member for Hamilton West says it is criminal. It is almost criminal. One needs only to talk to any employee of the penitentiary services, and I have a great many of them in my constituency. What bothers me is the attitude of those employees today compared to what
Measures Against Crime
it was when Davie Fulton was Minister of Justice. It bothers me to go into those penitentiaries and see what is happening there today as compared to the time Davie Fulton was Minister of Justice.
Today there is absolutely no discipline in our criminal institutions. The reason most people find themselves in those institutions is because they cannot face the discipline of society. But they go into those institutions today and find there is no more discipline there than there is out in the streets. As a result, barely are they out once more on the streets than they are back in the penitentiary again. There is a corftplete failure when it comes to rehabilitation in our penal system and this is mainly because we have ignored the fact that discipline is needed in order to convince inmates of our institutions that they do not want to go back there.
Since the hon. member for Calgary North and my new leader are both from Alberta I want to point out that one of the most realistic pilot projects in penology exists in the province of Alberta at the present time. They have said to people who transgress, to those who have done material damage to their fellow citizens, "You are not going to the penitentiary to lie around; you are going to work and compensate those to whom you have done damage." I cannot think of a better form of rehabilitation than to put some of these guys to work and make them pay the bills thay have run up. If they have to make amends in that way they will not want to make a second trip nearly as fast as they do today when things are almost as good inside the penitentiaries as they are outside. Indeed the food is probably better. The Solicitor General was even going to pay them unemployment insurance. I suppose the government might still pay them all unemployment insurance; almost everyone else in the country is getting it as a result of the economic policies, or lack of them, for which the government is responsible.
It is imperative that we get back to the realism Davie Fulton showed when he was Minister of Justice trying to build up a system which would make it unlikely that many of those who entered the institutions would wish to risk returning to them. We have not been getting such a prqs-pect since the present administration took office.
Davie Fulton probably built more new penal institutions than any Minister of Justice in the history of this nation. One of the concepts which he introduced, the one which impressed me most, was that of minimum security institutions, which were really nothing more than what one might call work camps. There were no bars, no walls, no guns worn by the guards or correctional officers, whatever they were called. One of the first of these institutions was constructed at Springhill in my constituency shortly after the disaster there. It was one of the finest contributions to rehabilitation which existed. But the present government did away with all those institutions. They were not part of its program. In fact they were the least costly way of housing prisoners.
The decision to do away with them was an unfortunate one; it happened because there were a lot of negative thinkers sitting around on the treasury benches. They thought it would be a good thing to save a few dollars by shutting down those institutions. Mr. Speaker, from the

March 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
taxpayers' point of view it was a most costly decision, as evidenced by the crime situation which confronts us today.
When the minister tells us crime is under control, I ask him this: when were ten people murdered in any city in this nation in any other period but this? Yet this happened a week ago in the City of Montreal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Ten over a weekend.


Robert Carman Coates: These things have been happening because the government has failed to give leadership along the road to better rehabilitation processes and a more realistic approach to penology. We must get back there. We are as willing as any group of individuals in the House to help the country get back on that road, and we shall co-operate with the minister in any way we can to improve this legislation. There is no doubt that the legislation needs improvement. For instance, in the area of gun control there is one clause which suggests that if a gun is stolen from an owner and is used in the commission of a crime the owner must be made responsible or a party to the crime in question. Just how ridiculous can you be? The situation we then face is that if a car is stolen and used later in the commission of a bank robbery, the person whose car was stolen could be regarded as a party to the crime.
If parliament wishes to see the legislation improved I can think of no reason why we should not be able to come up with a package which everyone finds acceptable. After all, every member of the House wishes to have the best possible laws on our statute books to protect all Canadians.
The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has drawn my attention to another section which provides that everyone who has a weapon in his possession while attending, or on his way to attending a public meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On his way to a Conservative party meeting.


Robert Carman Coates: I would say it would be a meeting of the sort we have these days in the province of Quebec, and probably in the city of Quebec.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: They are very convincing.


Robert Carman Coates: Well, I do not know whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is very convincing. I have watched him in the House for quite a while, and the way he was holding the podium the other night made me think he was going to jump through the television screen. If that is convincing then all I can say is that it is a new form of convincing.
Seriously, what type of meeting has the minister in mind here? If a person is carrying a concealed weapon for a number of clandestine reasons and goes to a meeting surely to goodness this should not be dealt with on summary conviction but should be an indictable offence.
In effect, the government is saying that it has to control guns because guns kill people. In this section it is saying that carrying a gun is no more serious than a speeding offence. I suggest we get our priorities straight. Many facets of this legislation will require a lot of examination

and probably a lot of amendment before the package is perfect.
As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) pointed out, there is nothing in the bill to deal with drug offences. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will be responsible for drug legislation, but will they please tell us, so we know who it is, and that something is being done about the problem. As I say, there is absolutely nothing to deal with the use of drugs in this peace and security legislation.
We all know that drugs are being sold and used in the penal institutions of this country and are responsible for most of the trouble in those institutions. It is a serious problem, one we should be made fully aware of before we are even asked to vote on this legislation. We must know exactly what the government is going to do about all aspects of crime in the nation. Perhaps it just wants the legislation to be cosmetic so as to please the great majority of the people who never see or handle a gun. By telling them that the government is going to put on controls, and do this and that, it hopes things will be a lot better in this nation. I suggest that gun control is not going to stop the crime in our streets at this particular time. Rather if we control the use of drugs we will be a long ways down the road to stopping crime. As I say, we had better hear something about this from the government before the legislation comes back to the House and is voted on.
This is one reason why I think the members of the House should examine the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North. It is a sensible amendment. Many people are upset about this legislation because they have not had the opportunity of placing their positions before the government and the public so far as amendment of the law is concerned. From this point of view, if the bill were sent back to committee and the government's program to control drugs were revealed and explained to the public, we would be in a much better position to make a decision about the value of the total package we are now being asked to consider.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say we must look seriously at some of the rehabilitation programs that have been proposed and which are underway within the penal system. I have before me a petition signed by hundreds of constituents of mine who live in an area called Apple River. The penitentiary service has endeavoured to carry out a project in that area with a private company, and has frightened and alarmed the people of the community. They are frightened and alarmed because no one told them of the danger inherent in such a program. Suddenly things started happening that presented a danger to the residents of the community.
As a result of this the people in the area called a meeting and asked to have the program withdrawn because of the dangers and risks it posed to them. Then at last the officials met with the people, who up until then were told nothing of the program. When people in a small community suddenly start facing inmates on the loose, naturally they become fearful. That is no way to carry out a rehabilitation program, and there are too many programs of this type under way at present. The Canadian penitentiary service must work with the people if they want to get
March 8, 1976

things done in that area. That has not been the case, but it must be the case in future if we are to have acceptance on the part of the public of the kind of rehabilitation programs the government wants to put into effect.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, if you permit me to call it ten o'clock, I will be able to make my speech tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, in this adjournment debate I wish to continue the discussions I have already had with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) relating to the recent decision of the Department of National Defence that "grazing should not be permitted in 1976 and possibly for several years thereafter", that is, in the Suffield PFRA pasture near Medicine Hat.
On February 19 I addressed a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) based on a most unfortunate and irresponsible press release issued by wildlife and fish and games interests in Alberta, the first sentence of which reads as follows:
The native grasslands of the Suffield Military Reserve, approximately 1,000 square miles of what was once one of the ecologically most valuable natural areas left in North America have been almost totally destroyed by the mismanagement of the Canada Department of Agriculture, Department of National Defence and the PFRA administration.
In my opinion it was sentiments such as this quotation, essentially from environmental and wildlife interests, that were instrumental in influencing the Suffield base commander to recommend to the Minister of National Defence that PFRA pasture grazing should cease. In doing so the Minister of National Defence chose to reject the very practical recommendation of his cabinet colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In essence the PFRA report stated that there has been no unalterable damage done to the ecology of the range, although there is some damage; that PFRA could improve conditions with better distribution and more uniform grazing, with increased watering facilities, but this requires extra financing which is presently not available under the temporary operation of the pasture.
PFRA recommends that under the strict terms of reference for use of the Suffield pasture-that it only be available under emergency drought conditions-no grazing be permitted because of the excellent growth here in 1975 but
Adjournment Debate
that, if required, the pasture could operate this year with reduced numbers of cattle.
This latter suggestion is a sensible recommendation that any cattleman can support as it is a policy he would follow on his own pastures; I mean by that he would make the cattle numbers fit the available grass.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these PFRA recommendations were prepared by agronomists like Dr. Bob Lodge and PFRA director Walter Thomson who have a history of over 40 years of PFRA pasture administration to back up their practical knowledge and experience.
I take some considerable pride in pointing out that PFRA has always agreed with my personal view since serving in this House that the emergency drought term of usage is ridiculous in determining if the Suffield pasture shall be used on a year to year basis.
Surely now is the time to establish a policy of an ongoing permanent pasture so that proper management, with adequate financing, can develop sufficient watering facilities and good range management. It does not follow that a permanent pasture will permit indiscriminate grazing with excessive cattle numbers. Cattlemen ranchers are by nature the very best conservationists. Their long-time livelihood depends on their understanding of and co-operation with nature.
Production of short grass on the Suffield pasture is the highest and best use of these lands and the multiple use concept of these lands by cattle, wildlife-including rattlesnakes-and even gas wells, is a long established land use principle that must continue to be recognized.
We are not so desperate yet for food that the Suffield pasture should be stocked completely with deer and antelope-and no cattle. Cattle and sheep are much more efficient converters of grass to meat. The Suffield pasture will support approximately 5,000 head of breeding cattle-I refer now specifically to the PFRA pasture-at a maximum quota of 20 head per patron, and that means some 250 farmers, all small cattle producers, will be severely affected by this order.
Since this entire area is primarily a ranching or grazing area these local farmers have not been able to take advantage of better grain markets, whereas cattle markets currently leave much to be desired.
I know that the minister and his parliamentary secretary are very well aware of this situation. I would ask the minister to consider again the recommendations of the PFRA staff and confer with his cabinet colleague, the Minister of National Defence, to work out some sensible compromise solution that will permit the Suffield pasture to operate this year perhaps on a limited basis. At least it should continue to operate. The good public relations that would accrue to his department, and indeed to the Department of National Defence, would be well worth while.
I want to point out that the use of the main Suffield area by the United Kingdom for tank training is now in its sixth year of a 10-year contract. I suggest it is not too early to begin to establish a policy for the future use of this 1,000 square mile area. I further suggest that the government of Alberta should be foremost in these future policy deliberations if only because the lands are, after all, Alberta lands, overlaying one of the largest proven natural gas fields in

March 8, 1976
Adjournment Debate
the world, now just beginning to be developed by the people of Alberta. In closing I wish to remind the minister of the petition he has received from 29 cattle producers along the south side of the Suffield Pasture.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the hon. member in reality was addressing his remarks tonight to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It may have been that he expected my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mclsaac), would be here tonight. My information was that the question was directed to the Department of National Defence. If there has been a mix-up in that regard I apologize to the hon. member, but it is certainly no fault of mine.
The hon. member stated that he was making his proposal in the utmost sincerity. I want to assure him that there is no doubt concerning his sincerity in respect of the case he is putting forward. I do not have very much information to add. My minister dealt with this problem during the question period and again last week during the adjournment debate. During the course of that debate, as recorded at page 11450 of Hansard, he stated:
The Suffield range is held by the federal government primarily for military training purposes. The range can, however, be of very real benefit to cattlemen in the area, particularly in times of emergency and in periods of drought, as it has been in the past. It seems to me it would be best for all concerned, including the cattlemen, if the range is kept as a reserve for emergencies, as in the past, and not used for grazing on a continuous basis. If the range is used each year for continuous grazing there will be no extra pasture available during periods of drought.
Later on in the same answer he said:
... I see no reason why we should not give full consideration to re-opening it in future years in special circumstances, as we have done in the past.
I wish to emphasize that the Suffield range is held by the Department of National Defence primarily for defence purposes. The decision with regard to the disposal of the range in the final analysis is a decision of the Minister of National Defence. He has made the decision. The range is and will continue to be administered by the Department of National Defence. His decision for this year is that there will be no use of the range for pasture unless an emergency situation arises.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF REAL GROWTH AND JOB CREATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, this debate tonight arises out of a question I put to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on December 16, 1975. At that time I referred to the information brought out by the former minister of finance that in 1975 there would be a real growth in the economy of 4 per cent and that the employment increase in 1975 would be a quarter of a million of new jobs.
The minister on December 16 really did not answer my question. The supplementary question I put concerned what his predictions were for 1976. He stated that the real growth, in his opinion, would be 5 per cent. He said that his aspiration is 5 per cent, but made no comment concerning job creation.

Just last Friday, as recorded at page 11531 of Hansard, the minister was asked further questions by my colleague from this party concerning the economy, and specifically what steps the government is taking to improve the growth performance in the economic sector. I was most startled to read the answers given by the Minister of Finance last Friday because virtually all he did was to read from Statistics Canada, and I can only presume that those statistics have so confused the minister that he does not know the sad state in which we find ourselves in 1976. I think it is good to put this on the record and I hope the parliamentary secretary tonight will shed some light concerning the present attitude of the Department of Finance with respect to the Canadian economy. I suggest that the Minister of Finance appears to be trying to justify the sad economic performance that we have experienced in Canada over the last 18 months. Let us look at the facts.
As I have stated, in November of 1974 the then minister of finance predicted that we would have a 4 per cent real growth last year. In reality it was two tenths of one per cent, and even by December 16, the day to which I referred, the present Minister of Finance would not admit that the government had failed. What is the cost of that failure, what is the cost of not producing a 4 per cent real growth in our economy? It is a loss of $4.2 billion or $420 per taxpayer. That is the shortfall that the government experienced in 1975, and I believe it is time it admitted it to the Canadian public.
If the Minister of Finance wants to read Statcan figures let him tell the public the real truth, namely, that there was a loss of over $4 billion from the projected figures in 1975. To put that in perspective, a $4 billion loss is enough to pay our whole debt interest charge in a year in this country. It would build 111,253 living units in the country, that is, 40 per cent of the total number of apartments and homes built in 1975. That is a colossal shortfall for any government to have within the few short months to which I have referred.
To put it on a per capita basis-I think that is perhaps the most significant figure for the average Canadian-the loss in 1975 was $67 per person, that is, the average person in 1975 compared to 1974 was $67 less well off than he was the previous year. That is Liberal progress. If you want to refer to the decline in percentage terms on a per capita basis, the decline in 1975 was 1.4 per cent from 1974. Now we are told by the same Minister of Finance that there may be an increase of 5 per cent in the current year. But with that 5 per cent increase, if it is achieved, and do not be surprised if it is not, it would mean that in the last two years the real growth on a per capita basis in this country has only been 1.9 per cent over a two year period. Imagine, less than 1 per cent a year in a country with the resources and the vibrance that is ours in Canada.
In the question that I put to the minister on December 16 I asked him about job creation. The previous minister had indicated that 250,000 jobs would be created. In December it appeared that only 123,000 jobs were going to be created, well short of the initial target. Now we have the figures up to date. For 1975 we find that there were only 108,000 new jobs created but, most alarmingly, in the manufacturing sector there was an actual decline of 99,000 jobs in 1975
March 8, 1976

from 1974. Manufacturing employment is now lower, based on the 1975 average figures, than in any year since 1972 in Canada.
Is it not absolutely shocking that we have a Minister of Finance who only last Friday attempted to justify these figures, indicating that somehow the economy was relativ-ery healthy, and he used Statistics Canada figures to try to justify that proposition? Now perhaps the minister will answer my question, or at least his parliamentary secretary. I should like to know what in fact the job creation reduction for the Department of Finance for 1976 was? What does the department currently believe will be the growth in this country for 1976? And above all, what immediate measures does it intend to take to improve the growth performance of our economy for 1976? The Canadian public deserve some answers. I think the time has ended when the government should be permitted to be less than candid in this House with regard to the state of our economy.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, on December 16 the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) asked a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) regarding estimates in real growth, and particularly regarding job creation. Up to a point he was quite accurate, but I do not agree with some of the figures he has used. Let me try to put some of the figures I possess on the record.
Canada's job creation and real growth in 1975 have to be considered against the background of severe declines in world economic activity in 1974 and 1975. Real output for the seven major OECD countries as reported in the December, 1975 Economic Outlook declined absolutely by 0.6 per cent in 1974 and is expected to show a decline of 2.25 per cent for 1975. Canada took offsetting action to support output and employment in November, 1974. As the world situation declined even more sharply in the winter of 1974-75, further offsetting actions were taken by Canadian governments in the spring and June of 1975. Even so, Canada's real output slowed and then declined through the first quarter of 1975, mainly because of the decline in Canada's real exports which reflected the severity of the decline abroad.
Canada's real growth and job creation were thus held below our goals and expectations, but even so in both respects Canada's performance was much better than most other industrialized countries. I will give the figures. Canada's real growth between 1973 and 1974 was 2.8 per cent. Between 1974 and 1975 the increase of Canadian real GNP was a fraction of 1 per cent, according to the national accounts released last week. Average year over year employment growth in 1974 was 379,000 and in 1975 about 167,000, and I believe the hon. member quoted 108,000.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about December to December?


Mr. Trudel:: The low point of Canada's economic activity in the recent world recession was reached in the first quarter of 1975. Since then Canadian real output has grown by about 2.2 per cent. In the eight month period from April through December seasonally adjusted employment increased by 214,000. The Canadian economy is at
Adjournment Debate
present experiencing a cyclical recovery which should carry on through 1976.
Forecasts of the increase in real output in 1976 are falling in the range of 4.5 per cent to 5.5 per cent, which was quoted December 16 by the minister. Improvement in exports and housing activity, increased real consumer spending, and a modest resumption of inventory stocking are the principal positive factors for real Canadian growth in 1976.
To conclude, there should be considerable expansion of employment, but owing to the continued rapid increase in the Canadian labour force unemployment is not expected to drop sharply in the immediate future.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-INDIA-GUARANTEES SOUGHT PRIOR TO RESUMPTION OF TRADE IN NUCLEAR MATERIALS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in May of 1974 India exploded a nuclear device in the Rajasthan desert. That explosion was a herald of one of the most prolific dangers ever to the perpetrated on this world, and the fact that Canada provided the technology, the tools, and the knowledge with which that explosion was created is something for which we ourselves must remain accountable and for which we must be held accountable in any world court.
Canadians and parliamentarians have every right to expect the government to tell us in specific terms what the government discussed with the Government of India concerning the export of nuclear aid and nuclear technology. These discussions have resumed, and the government ought to be far more forthcoming with information than it was today. I put certain questions on the subject to the Acting Prime Minister on Friday, and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today. I am appalled at the lack of interest and concern they showed about the horrendous, politically suicidal course on which we are embarked. Some months ago I said, when speaking on the subject of Canada's continuing export of nuclear technology, that in today's world:
Acceptance of a country's word that it will not use our technology to create weapons is a show of confidence which conditions in today's society do not warrant. Faith in a country's avowals of its peaceful purposes, avowals which can be withdrawn at any time, for any reason, amounts to naive gullibility. Trust that any country will prevent materials and knowledge from falling into the hands of criminals and lunatics is suicidal stupidity.
Yet here we are, embarked on further discussions with a country which has already shown bad faith, which has already broken an agreement over the use of nuclear technology. One year ago the British publications, New Scientist, said:
Canada has consistently refrained from committing its sophisticated nuclear energy industry to military purposes, yet it has emerged as a major offender under the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty.
Only those who deliberately blind themselves to the obvious continue to deny that Canada is wilfully and knowingly contributing to the increasing likelihood of some future world nuclear catastrophe. I say that because I am greatly disturbed. The Prime Minister, who sent his personal, political adviser to India to discuss the resump-

Adjournment Debate
tion of shipments of nuclear aid and technology to that country, did not care to inform himself 48 hours after the conclusion of those discussions as to the outcome of any accord or agreement entered into. He did not inform himself as to conditions Canada might require India to observe before we entered into the accord. He was too preoccupied with his party's domestic concerns in Quebec to discover what this country was negotiating with another country which had already broken the terms of a contract relating to nuclear matters.
I am appalled. In our own, unthinking way, we may be instrumental in unleashing a nuclear holocaust on this world, yet the Prime Minister does not feel accountable to Parliament or the people of this country, and will not explain the terms of the accord.
As a country we cannot stand apart from such conflicts. We cannot stand apart from international conditions which we have allowed to escalate. We have helped nuclear knowledge to spread in the world. As a country we are responsible for our actions and cannot rationalize away that responsibility. We must meet our responsibilities.
We, as a country, have been very fortunate in the knowledge we developed in the last 30 years in the field of nuclear technology. We have not at the same time learned how to contain the spread of nuclear waste. As long as we continue selling, perpetrating, and spreading across this world the nuclear energy we have without any kind of reference, containment or guarantee, there is only one way open to Canada. That is to place a ban or moratorium on all extension and all effort to spread abroad our nuclear technology, fuels, and capability until such time as there is a world agreement that there will be no further explosion of nuclear weapons. Until there is that agreement, Canada should declare an over-all ban, a total moratorium on the export of its nuclear technology.


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadians who would have heard the speech of my colleague from Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) tonight might believe that their government is totally irresponsible with regard to nuclear technological knowledge transfer and aid to Third World countries, which is not the case. I respect the concern expressed by my colleague, but I strongly oppose the overly harsh words, I feel, she has used, the vagueness of her statements and the fact that those statements entertain the latent fear of every Canadian for the nuclear field, since Canadians have always wanted peace in the world.

The negotiations in New Delhi on safeguards only finished over the week end and officials are now studying the reports received. Nothing seems abnormal in these procedures. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the course that these negotiations followed. I am sure the hon. member knows that since she referred to the fact that it was only last Friday that she asked her question. Once the report of officials has been studied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), he will no doubt wish to answer members questions on this issue.
With regard to the relation between nuclear co-operation and NPT ratification, however, I would like to reiterate our policy. NPT adherence is not an absolute pre-condition to nuclear trade on commercial terms with other countries. Binding international safeguards meeting Canadian standards on Canadian supplies, are, however, such a prerequisite. It is for this reason that Canada has been negotiating with a number of countries.
This is a continuing process, not something that stops one day with a perfect agreement which everybody signs. It is an on-going process which we try to improve according to new knowledge. However, NPT adherence is a precondition for extending bilateral government development assistance resources in the nuclear field. Canada will only make new commitments for extending such bilateral aid- as opposed to completing existing undertakings-to NPT parties.
In the case of India, amended and strengthened safeguards on both RAPP reactors would be a precondition for completing such deliveries as remain outstanding for the second RAPP reactor.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.


Tuesday, March 9, 1976