1976-04-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion dealing with a matter of great urgency to many Canadians. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare be urged to introduce at this session the necessary legislation to provide for the equivalent of the spouse's allowance, as provided in the Old Age Security Act, to be paid as well to widows, spinsters, widowers and bachelors between the ages of 60 and 65, either on the basis of need or on the basis of their being out of the labour market.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the poor results obtained by the implementation of the government policy on bilingualism and since the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Keith Spicer, himself advocates a new direction of the program to teach a second language to public servants, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House entrust a special parliamentary committee with the care of studying, analyzing and if necessary, implementing, the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an important and urgent matter.
Considering that from 1959 to 1973 the government's expenses for maritime transportation and construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway reached only $859 million, while during the same period railway companies received $2.6 billion in subsidies; that Canada ranks among the most important importing and exporting countries in the world and that the Canadian maritime transportation industry is now headed for disaster, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House direct the government to take the necessary steps to encourage the building and operation of maritime transport in Canada in order to help ship owners to be present again on the international maritime scene.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.
12658

April 9, 1976
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether he has taken any steps since yesterday to brief himself more fully on the role of any ministers or their staffs with regard to concessions to Sky Shops and whether he can inform the House if he has discovered any errors of omission or commission by ministers or their staffs in their staff relations or otherwise.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, what I made clear yesterday was that I have not been briefed by the police on this matter. I presume they would have told me if any minister had been under any suspicion, but there was no information conveyed to me by them on that. I said yesterday that I had talked to ministers and asked about their involvement. I am satisfied that neither the present Minister of the Environment nor the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce knew of any wrongdoing in their departments or on the part of their staff in the Sky Shops matter.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I certainly thank the Prime Minister for that answer, but I should like to put a further question to him. In view of increasing evidence that porkbarrel politics has been interfering with the administration of the country's affairs at the highest staff levels in the offices of the Minister of Transport and DREE, and in view of previous denials by the Solicitor General that Liberal Party fund raising had anything to do with the investigations, which, of course, has been contradicted by the warrant obtained by the RCMP, does the Prime Minister not concede that he owes the country an explanation as to how his administration has been tainted by partisan politics, to the detriment of the management of the country's affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: From one who talks of partisan politics that seems to me to be a fine statement of partisan politics in which there are unsubstantiated allegations. If the hon. member has any allegations, I will make sure the police look into them, and I will look into them myself. I told the House-and I expect the hon. member to take my word-that I discussed this matter with both ministers and that they knew of no unethical, illegal or improper activities within their offices regarding the Sky Shops affair.


ROLE OF MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT IN APPOINTMENT OF CARMEL CARRIERE TO IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, naturally I respect the word of the Prime Minister on this matter. I should like to ask a final supplementary of the Minister of the Environment on the question of the appointment of Carmel Carriere to the Immigration Appeal Board. Could the minister indicate whether he played any role at the relevant time with respect to this appointment and whether the appointment will be renewed, or will it be as it was in the case of the Hamilton Harbour Commission? Will there be changes made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I have the greatest difficulty understanding how that relates to the minister's responsibility for the environment. Could the hon. member make that clear?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I think it has a relationship in the sense that this lady was the executive assistant to the minister at some relevant times here and is now on the Immigration Appeal Board, so I am wondering about the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: At some relevant times is the point which might be clarified by the hon. member. I thought we ought to be clear on what relevant time, what ministry and what minister. We have to understand how the question relates to the minister's current responsibilities because it is to the current minister that the question is put. I do not think we have to use the whole question period to try to sort this out, but if the hon. member has a question for the appropriate minister at the time the decision to make the appointment was made, perhaps the hon. member would like to reflect on how he might be more accurate.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, with all deference I think the Prime Minister begs the question here, and having regard to our experiences in the judges' affair in which some time elapsed before he was able to apprise himself and make himself fully aware of the circumstances with respect to that incident, I now ask the Prime Minister whether he will undertake at this time to make the fullest and most thorough investigation on the basis of ministerial responsibility and report before Easter with respect to his knowledge or his investigation of whether the ministers or staff members of the ministers' offices were free from any impropriety whatsoever, so that we can be satisfied before we break for Easter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to the question the hon. member talked about a lapse of time. I remind him that as soon as the Minister of Justice heard from the judges of any possible impropriety, he launched an investigation by the judges themselves into the matter.

As far as my own conduct is concerned, I always took the position that I would wait for the report of the Chief Justice before investigating into the courts, and I still maintain that was the proper conduct. Indeed, that applied also to the conduct of my ministers. On the question itself, I have launched an investigation, to use the words of the hon. member. I discussed this matter at some length with both ministers. I am satisfied, as I told the House a moment ago, about their conduct. In so far as the police having suspicions about other people is concerned, not in my cabinet and not in this House, the matter has been turned over to the attorney general of the province, and he will take whatever measures he feels are proper. In so far as the responsibilities of the minister are concerned, I have discussed that with them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the references made yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would give us an assurance before Easter. I think it would be proper for the Prime Minister to make an investigation as soon as possible. Therefore, perhaps he will assure us that in order to make sure he is fully apprised of the facts he will communicate with the attorney general or, indeed, the RCMP to see what information there might be that would assist him in coming to a conclusion as to whether there has been any impropriety on the part of senior staff members in ministers' offices and report to us, as I say, before Easter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this invitation from the opposition because normally I would not ask the police to make a report to me on their investigations. If I did I am sure the opposition would claim I should not be interfering with the police by asking them what they are doing there.


Mr. Clark:: You did in the case of the Hamilton harbour.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not in any case. Mr. Speaker, I will, following this series of comments, undertake to talk to the police as early as possible, Monday if they are prepared to see me, to ask them to confirm what I already have from the ministers, namely, that the police have no reason to believe the ministers are involved in wrongdoing. I hope the House will not ask me also to conduct an investigation into other people who are being considered for charges by the courts of justice.
In so far as the ministers are concerned, I repeat the fact that the police have not alerted me to any wrongdoing, giving me a prima facie case to believe that the police have no suspicion and no cause to believe the ministers are involved. It has been a long standing practice that when police are investigating ministers they let the Prime Minister know. In this case they have not found it necessary to tell me they had any suspicion of wrongdoing in the matter. I will satisfy the member and ask the police to give me a much more complete report than they usually do.
Oral Questions NORTHERN AFFAIRS


FAILURE OF MINISTER TO BE AWARE OF ISSUANCE OF EXPLORATORY PERMITS-PROMISE OF CONSULTATION WITH INUIT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I would direct my question to the Prime Minister. On Wednesday of this week in answer to a question by the member for Northwest Territories the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicated he was unaware of the issuance of 68 exploratory permits in the Northwest Territories. Would the Prime Minister advise whether he has inquired as to why his minister is unaware, in respect of such an important matter, of what is going on in his department? In addition, could the Prime Minister advise the House whether the cabinet in the commitment to the Inuit Tapirisat people on February 27 indicated that no further permits would be issued in the Northwest Territories without consultation?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, these permits are issued in the regular course of action by the department, and it is necessary that a land use permit be given before any further exploration is to take place. If this occurs, there is a 42 day period required for consultation, so the consultation factor did not come into play in this particular action.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, that only answers one part of the question. The other part asked whether there was any commitment at all given. Let me direct my supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment. In evidence before the Berger inquiry by Mr. Douglas Stephen, regional director of Canadian Wildlife Services, he said, and I hope I quote him correctly, that he has not prosecuted some companies under the environmental protection regulations because of the political impact such prosecutions might have. He said to the judge he would put wings and a halo to his minister. I think he was referring to this particular minister. Can the minister advise the House if he has had any discussions with that particular official and whether that evidence indicates government policy in the north?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I read part of his testimony before the Berger Commission. This is the first time I have heard about that. I have enough halos. I do not need anyone to give me more. I have never asked anyone in the department to look at the political aspect of those problems.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Banish the thought.

April 9, 1976
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: I am happy that the right hon. member for Prince Albert has confirmed what I am saying. I would like to see this man to ask him exactly what he meant when he made this statement.


PROPOSED COMMITTEE STUDY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PERMITS TO DRILL IN BEAUFORT SEA
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The Beaufort Sea permits for drilling are still being delayed. I understand that the delay will be short. In view of the fact the preliminary studies on the Beaufort Sea indicate a potential for environmental disaster in the event of a blowout, will the minister refer that question to the committee on the environment or the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that some study can be done by parliamentarians in consultation with environmentalists prior to the permit being issued? Why is there no activity in the House of Commons with regard to an inquiry prior to the issuance of the drilling permits?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there has been a very long inquiry. One condition when the temporary permit was issued was that there be an inquiry on the environmental aspect of the problem. We received the report. Everything is now before cabinet. There has been a short discussion on this, even before the standing committee. The permit, of course, will not be issued before the cabinet decision. I cannot reveal that because the decision has not yet been made.


OLYMPIC GAMES
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In a telegram the private secretary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is said to have sent to a member of the Quebec National Assembly, it would be clearly indicated that, in compliance with the express wish of the Canadian authorities, Her Majesty has accepted to inaugurate the Olympic Games. As the Prime Minister stated categorically before 1,500 delegates of his party that COJO alone was responsible for that invitation, would he be willing, in order to protect his integrity, to state quite clearly what the truth of the matter is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the telegram mentioned by the hon. member, but I thank him for the question as it will give me the opportunity of throwing a little light on the facts.
May I point out to the hon. member that he is slightly in error when he says that I claimed that COJO alone was responsible for the invitation. What I told the delegates, and willingly repeat in this House, is that-and to my mind it is important that this be known-under international rules COJO in fact invited the Queen of Canada to inaugurate the games. It did so through normal channels,

that is by asking the federal government to convey the invitation, inasmuch as it is standard practice, whenever a province, a regiment or any other Canadian groups wants to invite a member of the royal family, for the federal government to transmit the invitation.
What I do want to stress is that the invitation came from COJO according to international rules; I transmitted it after having discussed the matter with the Quebec premier, who told me he had spoken to Mayor Drapeau about it. Only after those consultations did Premier Bou-rassa and myself agree to encourage COJO to go ahead, and I did convey the invitation.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who has joint responsibility with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on the tariff role with regard to the textile industry in Canada. Yesterday the Senate committee studying the textile industry in Canada tabled its first report. Among other things, it criticizes the federal government for its unwillingness to implement the textile policy in accordance with the aims of that policy and, in fact, to promote almost an open door policy. My question to the Minister of Finance is the following: Will the government act immediately on the preliminary recommendations of the committee in order to alleviate the chaotic conditions affecting Canada's textile industry and, more particularly, to assure some reasonable percentage of the Canadian market to the domestic industry and labour force? Also, and this is very important, will the government immediately establish a time limit for the relevant minister to act on the recommendations of the Textile and Clothing Board?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I do have this question under consideration. We hope to be able to make a very early statement on it.


William Heward Grafftey: In view of the mass lay-offs in the textile industry affecting breadwinners who have very little mobility, can the minister assure the House that we will see immediate action to implement these recommendations and bring hope to both labour and industry in this regard?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I have said, we intend to make a careful analyses of this and issue an early statement. But if by "immediately" he means now, while I am on my feet, the answer is, no.
April 9, 1976


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD PROPOSAL THAT CASUALTY AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANIES BE BROUGHT UNDER BOARD CONTROL
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance-the Prime Minister probably gave him notice of it since I asked the question of the Prime Minister last week while the minister was away at the Dominion-Provincial Conference. Has the Minister of Finance considered the recommendation of the Anti-Inflation Board that the casualty and general insurance companies which collectively lost over $400 million last year and would therefore seem to be outside the jurisdiction of the Anti-Inflation Board should in any event be brought under the board's control?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is true the picture as a whole indicates a loss position but individual companies have been in a profit-making position. The government has considered the recommendation of the Anti-Inflation Board and I anticipate an order in council on this question next week.


PENITENTIARIES
John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the matter I raised yesterday with the Solicitor General, I should now like to direct a further question to him. Yesterday he said the inmates in Prince Albert penitentiary who had been on the sit-down had gone back to their cells and that all was reasonably well and being investigated by, I think, three civil servants. I would point out that at the very time he was saying this, or almost the same time, while the sit-down was ending, a dig-in was continuing and they had dug a tunnel to within 25 feet of safety. In other words, the situation was serious and illustrates the need for an independent examination of what is taking place. Will the minister not give consideration, particularly in view of the representation of the Metis Society of Saskatchewan that things are serious because of the failure of the department to appoint a judge to look into this matter so that there will be no cover up by civil servants?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: It is true that during the sit-down strike a number of inmates, not all of them, were involved in digging a tunnel in an attempt to escape. I might say that although they had dug about 60 feet, they were far from freedom.


An hon. Member:: Twenty-five feet away.


William Warren Allmand: They were 25 feet from the wall but what they did not know was that the wall extends into the ground some ten feet; they would have had a difficult time getting past it through a tunnel or in any other way. It was a lot of work for nothing. As mentioned by the right hon. member we have set up an internal inquiry to look into this matter. I will await that report. If the report is not
Oral Questions
satisfactory and we do not get enough information I will consider other means of dealing with the matter.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED CONFISCATION OF EARNINGS OF DRUG TRAFFICKERS-POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF LeDAIN COMMISSION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In asking it I also want to make a positive suggestion. I have noted in the news media that there have been cases where people who have been trafficking in hard drugs have been assessed by the income tax officials. If the department is able to assess the amount of money that these hard drug traffickers are making, would the minister consider whether there is any legislation available that would enable him to confiscate all of this money? This is the one of the most demoralizing criminal rackets today and is one of the great causes of and contributors to crime.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I found the same story that the hon. member refers to rather interesting, to say the least. I have been examining it in light of the amendments that we made in Bill C-71 in regard to the provisions relating to the proceeds of crime; and I have also been examining it to see whether those provisions could apply to such cases.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is there any policy existing that will change any laws relating to drug trafficking or which will implement any of the recommendations of the LeDain Commission, which report cost several million dollars and seems to be gathering dust?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not legislation will be introduced, I think the hon. member appreciates that this will be announced in due course in the usual way.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that uranium mines come under federal jurisdiction, what steps are being taken to ensure that authority from the Atomic Energy Control Board is granted automatically to the occupational safety and health department of the Department of Labour to make on the spot inspections to ensure that radioactive dangers at the uranium mines at Elliot Lake are eliminated?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that there is very close co-ordination between the Department of Labour, the

April 9, 1976
Oral Questions
deparment responsible for the atomic energy commission and the commission itself. I might add that we have arranged with various provincial governments, including the province of Ontario, that they will assume their responsibility and co-operate with us in terms of occupational health standards. I think the matter the hon. member refers to has been brought to my attention previously, and I indicated to the United Steel Workers and to other unions the arrangement we have entered into concerning the responsibilities of the provinces.


DATE OF LAST INSPECTION OF URANIUM MINES- AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS
William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When is the last time that safety inspectors of the Department of Labour visited the mines at Elliot Lake, Ontario, and Uranium City, Wollaston Lake and Cluff Lake in Saskatchewan? If such a visit has been completed, are the reports of these investigations available to the public?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will get that information for the hon. member. I must advise him that I will have to check with the provinces in this connection. I will also inquire as to their diligence in conducting these inspections.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister been advised of the very serious outbreak of the disease blue tongue among cattle in the south Okanagan valley of British Columbia?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are a month behind.


Len Marchand: It is not a Tory disease. Also, what is the department's policy in dealing with the problem? If it is to dispose of the herds, will there be adequate compensation paid to the owners?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the department's policy is to eradicate the source of the disease, and the herds infected by the disease, as quickly as possible and to pay proper compensation. This disease has been researched. It comes from imported animals from the United States that had the disease in the first place.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I address my question to the Minister of Labour. Due to labour problems at the finance branch of Air Canada in Winnipeg, hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue are being lost, and as the CALEA contract expired last August would the minister take immediate steps to have Air Canada return to the negotiating table?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this has been a very difficult dispute. The commissioner has made a report, and as the hon. member knows there have been endeavours made to have the parties get together, without success. As to renewed efforts on the department's part to see whether the dispute can be resolved, yes, we are making those efforts now.



AIR CANADA


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Air Canada is not able to pay its bills on time due to the problems at the finance branch in Winnipeg. As the gas board in London, England has threatened to cut off the gas supply to the Air Canada flight kitchen at Heathrow Airport because the gas bill has not been paid, as Air Canada also owes a 2,700 pounds electricity bill and Seagrams and other companies have served notice that all further purchases must be on a cash on delivery basis, and as two other companies are in serious financial difficulties due to Air Canada's negligence, would the Prime Minister look into the matter immediately and stop this idiotic nonsense which has existed at the finance branch in Winnipeg for the last three years? Canada's image abroad is being seriously damaged by this bill paying negligence.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will understand that I am not familiar with the details of Air Canada's gas bill at Heathrow airport but I will take note of the question. I understand that the Minister of Labour is meeting with Air Canada officials on Monday, and he will, of course, discuss this and many other matters.



FINANCE


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of large Canadian foreign borrowings last year amounting to
April 9, 1976

$4.7 billion and to almost $3 billion in the first three months this year, would the minister indicate what he anticipates will be the total foreign borrowing by Canadians in the coming year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of anticipation that I think it is probably not useful for me to make in this House. I shall be glad, of course, to discuss the general question during the budget debate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of this extensive borrowing and the heavy debt charges that are now accruing of approximately $400 million a year for future years, would the minister indicate whether he has contacted municipalities and provinces with a view to having them tone down their aggressive borrowing in foreign markets?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker. While we have encouraged provincial governments in the past to seek to place their securities in the Canadian market, for the moment at least that restraint has been lifted from them.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The minister previously indicated that by April 1 he would announce a dairy policy. When April 1 rolled around, all he said was "April fool, it will be on the following Thursday". Thursday has now come and gone. I wonder whether we can milk him for some sort of policy now since he seems to be dry. When is he due now?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all the bellowing over there is not going to bring about a milk program for this year any faster. I notice that no one has suggested that I put any more money into the program; they are all sitting quietly. I am amazed that there have not been more questions about this, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ASSISTANCE TO NOVA SCOTIA WITH THE COST OF PRODUCING ELECTRICITY

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the report that was given to the legislature of Nova Scotia by the finance minister of that province following the finance ministers' conference held last week, which so far as he was concerned was not in the least encouraging from the point of view of federal assistance in the production of energy, may I ask the minister whether he has any words of encouragement to give the people of Nova Scotia to the effect that the federal govern-
Oral Questions
ment will assist in a tangible way so their electric power will not be cut off and people will not lose their homes through inability to pay light and power bills, as is happening at the present time?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the very serious problem facing some of these people. I do not think the question of whether their power is cut off is for the federal government, but I can say that the federal government is looking at the case that has been put by Nova Scotia. However, I think the clear answer is that I cannot hold out very much hope. Our resources are limited.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the agreement been signed between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States with regard to the cost-sharing program for the highway from Haines in the state of Alaska to Haines Junction in the Yukon and from Haines Junction at the U.S. border? If the agreement has not been signed, when does the minister expect it will be signed and that construction will commence?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the agreement has not been signed. Discussions currently are going on with the government of British Columbia with regard to the right-of-way and the environmental questions. A good deal of progress has been made and I believe these discussions will be completed shortly.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that reply. Is he aware that the Yukon legislative assembly has passed a resolution requesting a copy of the agreement when available, and can he inform the House when that agreement will be public and sent to the members of the assembly as requested.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand that consultations have been held with the Yukon and that the contents of the proposed agreement have been made known to their officials. We have not completed the agreement. When it is completed I will consider making it available to the members of the council, but normally such government agreements are not made public. In this case I will consider whether we can make an exception.

Oral Questions



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. It relates to mercury poisoning, the Minamata disease, in parts of Northern Ontario and the report that was issued by the minister's department which was completed in 1972 and which mentioned the dangers of mercury poisoning in northern Ontario. The report was not released until 1975. I should like to ask the minister what was the reason for the three-year delay in telling the people of the dangers in the food they were eating and whether it is a continuing practice within the department to withhold from people information about things which seriously affect their health.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am inquiring about that. I understand there was a preliminary report in 1972 which was completed afterward and published only in 1975. I hope I can get more information, but this is the reason I was given this morning when I noted this delay. I think that has been mentioned before the standing committee of the House on Environment and Fisheries.


Arnold John Malone: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the testimony given last night before the committee to the effect that there was total inaction in respect of the health of the people, and that basically the action has all been directed toward monitoring, would the minister give some indication concerning what kind of approaches are intended so that we do not fall into the position of always trying to assess the health problems but rather will in fact be directly trying to improve the health of the native peoples in northern communities.


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is what the report is all about. So far as other Canadians are concerned, we have very strict standards as the hon. member knows. Nothing can be sold above a certain standard which I think is about 0.5 or something like that. As to the rest of the report so far as the Indians are concerned, I hope I will have the information asked for and can inform the hon. member early next week.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Transport I have a question for the Minister of Labour. It is further to the questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Is the minister aware that, rather than trying to meet its employees and reach an agreement, Air Canada is now taking steps to have the work normally done by its own employees in the finance department office in Winnipeg contracted out to CAE which in fact is hiring former Air Canada employees to do the work which should have been done and should be done now by Air Canada

employees in the finance department? If he is aware of this will he take steps so that he and the Minister of Transport can try to get the management of Air Canada to sit down and negotiate seriously and amicably with its employees to reach an agreement.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker; it is my intention to have Air Canada sit down and negotiate an agreement with the employees. We are doing everything possible to promote that end. As to whether it would be helpful in achieving that end that I should comment on the observations of the hon. member preliminary to his question, I rather doubt.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of and would he inquire about the rumours that are going around Winnipeg to the effect that the company is preparing to lock out its employees? Does the minister consider that kind of action would require some very strong action on the part of the minister and his colleague the Minister of Transport.


John Carr Munro: I certainly will note the hon. member's observation, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORTATION


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I shall direct my question to the Minister of Finance, since the Minister of Transport is not here.
Considering that since 1959 the St. Lawrence Seaway has recorded nothing but deficits which now amount to $815 million, could the minister tell the House what he intends to do to correct the situation and enable the St. Lawrence Seaway to operate normally as a business?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of Transport I would be glad to take notice of this question and ask the minister to reply next week.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
According to the president of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, Canadian taxpayers seem to be subsidizing the Americans to a certain extent if we consider that last year only $26 million were collected in tolls; since the operating cost goes on spiralling, would the minister be in a position to tell the House whether he intends to increase the toll rates?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that is an announcement that the Minister of Transport would want to make.
April 9, 1976



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower I should like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. It relates to reports to the effect that some 2,000 American construction workers were involved with employment in and around the Sarnia area and after their employment terminated returned to the United States. Apparently unemployment insurance cheques are still being forwarded to them without inspectors having any way to check whether or not they have found jobs or are in receipt of the United States unemployment insurance. Is the parliamentary secretary aware of this very serious matter, and will he undertake to bring it to the attention of the minister in order that he can look into it and report back to the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Unemployment Insurance Act section 12, a reciprocal agreement was signed by Canada and the United States. Under this agreement, anybody having contributed to unemployment insurance may apply for benefits in the state where he worked, or in Canada if he ever worked here. Therefore an American having worked for more than eight weeks in Canada and returning to the United States when he is unemployed may apply and prove his entitlement to the benefits in Canada. However, the applicant must meet all conditions of eligibility as provided in the act and regulations.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We are aware of that particular section. There is another section in the act which indicates that in the event of any duplication of unemployment insurance payments the Governor-in-Council, by way of regulation, can accept that particular employment. So my question still is whether the parliamentary secretary will bring this problem to the attention of the minister in order to see whether or not there is any duplication in payments, and if so, then they are wrong and the parliamentary secretary can recommend the implementation of the regulation just referred to by me.


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, the commission is aware of the hon. member's allegations and we shall bring them to the attention of the minister. An answer can be expected within a few days.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for New Westminster and it is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the statement made by the Canadian Wildlife Service Division at the Berger inquiry where it was admitted the agency took political implications into consideration before taking legal action and that the legal action which was taken was only of a token nature, can the minister assure the House that in future charges will be laid without fear or favour?


Jean Marchand: do not accept the statement that this was done in the past because of favour or political interference. It has never been that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That is what the man said.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Is the minister then saying that this is not the policy of his department or that it is not the policy of Mr. Stephens and that Mr. Stephens was in fact making a very grave error in his testimony before the commission?


Jean Marchand: The only thing I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is not the policy of the department.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Marcel Prudhomme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question.
The Leader of the Opposition announced this morning the formation of a shadow cabinet. Would the Prime Minister do the Leader of the Opposition a favour by suggesting the creation of a physical fitness and amateur sports department to give the hon. member for Joliette the opportunity of serving as a full-time cabinet member?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of suggestion that I want to make sure will be considered in depth. I have the impression, on looking at seats today, that the shadow cabinet would be more appropriately termed a "ghost" cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: That is very cheap.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope it will not go unnoticed, even by the Prime Minister of the country, that the Leader of the Opposition and other members of our party are attending the funeral of the Hon. Grattan O'Leary who gave service to this country at least equal, if not surpassing, that of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 9, 1976
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Of course, the remark of the hon. member from the Opposition is not relevant to this. My reflection had nothing to do with the presence or absence of the people on the other side. It had to do with the quality of the leadership over there.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. Statements have been made by guards at Drumheller institution that it is a medium security prison with maximum security inmates and minimum security standards. Since the Solicitor General has stated that there are people in maximum security who should be in medium security and vice versa, does he intend to wait until we have an Attica in Canada before he takes his own statements seriously?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have not been advised by anyone that they thought maximum security inmates were at Drumheller, but since the hon. member has brought it to my attention I will check on the facts and see that we do not have maximum security inmates at Drumheller.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mt. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it has to do with the Garrison diversion project. In view of the statement appearing in an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 21 in which it was stated that the federal government was prepared to make environmental sacrifices in order to preserve the level of U.S.-Canada relations, could the minister now assure the House that the position of Canada will not be to make any kind of sacrifices in the environmental sense with reference to the Garrison diversion?
Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is certainly not the intention of the government of Canada which has pressed continuously the obligations that have been undertaken by the U.S. under the appropriate international agreement. As the hon. member knows, the question of the Garrison diversion has been put before the International Joint Commission and presently the commission is undertaking an examination of what possible effects might occur as the result of the construction. Of course, the reference to the commission is broad enough to enable it to require an alteration in the structure if environmental damage were demonstrated.


Mr. Whiteway:: That is the very point that is of some concern to Manitobans. In view of the fact that the IJC is

taking one year to bring in its report and that there are virtually no alterations in the construction plans of the Garrison and the feeling is certainly prevalent in Manitoba that this is an irreversible project, would the minister assure the House that in view of the continuing construction, and therefore the guaranteed environmental damage which is inevitable, not pre-empting the findings of IJC, that whether or not the project is completed to any degree it will not prejudice the position of the federal government with regard to environmental damage caused by the Garrison diversion project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in our view the mandate of the International Joint Commission is broad enough to permit it to recommend the discontinuance or the deletion of any part of the project, and for that reason of course the project is not irreversible in that sense.



ANGOLA-REPORTS THAT REPATRIATED SOLDIERS FACE DEATH-REQUEST FOR REPORT

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the 4,000 black Angolan soldiers who fled with the South African forces on their withdrawal from Southern Angola and in view of reports that they must be repatriated within a month, has the minister any information as to the truth of reports that many or most would face certain death if they were to return to Marxist Angola?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have information on this point at my fingertips. I will make inquiries and provide any useful information to the hon. member.



RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTION OF EMBASSIES

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the protection of our embassies abroad totally under the jurisdiction of the country in which they are located and, if so, if Canadians interfere with that jurisdiction are they only charged under the laws of the country or of that embassy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member might specify a situation. He has really asked the minister for a general interpretation of the law of the country, and I wonder whether the minister wants to try to answer that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry. I did not understand the question.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: It has to do with protection of our embassies in other countries. If our embassy-in this case the example is Lebanon-has been interfered with by a Canadian, is that Canadian charged only under the laws of the country in which our embassy is situated?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding. I am not attempting to give a legal opinion, but that is my understanding of the situation.



ANTI-INFLATION BOARD DECISION TO GRANT INCREASE IN PRICE OF OIL-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board to grant the oil companies an increase of one cent per gallon, which will cost Canadian consumers about $60 million per year. In view of the fact that this increase will come into effect on Monday next, has the government decided to intervene and to rescind the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board regarding this increase in the price of gasoline and home heating fuel?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have now had an opportunity to examine the board's conclusions in this regard. We have noted that the board has concluded that the companies, in their application under the pre-notification procedure, indeed have additional costs involved. In that case there would be no scope under the Anti-Inflation Act for the cabinet to intervene, and of course, we will not be doing so.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is the intention of the Prime Minister to table today some documents relating to the constitutional talks with the provinces, and to make a statement thereon. Ordinarily, this statement would be made on routine proceedings shortly after noon, but as the House has been reminded, today is the funeral of the late Senator Grattan O'Leary.
There is also another difficulty of which we are all aware, and that is that if the statement is made in the ordinary way today and there is some discussion thereon, it would reduce the time available for the completion of the debate on second reading of Bill C-83. Fortunately, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has very generously offered to give up his time on private members' hour at four o'clock today. Therefore, I ask if the House would be agreeable to reverting to routine proceedings at four o'clock in order to enable the Prime Minister both to table the documents and to make the statement.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate the agreement of the official opposition and also to express our thanks to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for the accommodation he has offered, not only to the official opposition but also to the government so that the Prime Minister could lunch with King Hussein.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the last time I gave up a private members' hour which had been assigned to me, the result was that we got through an important piece of legislation regarding prisoners of war. I dare to hope that my offer today to give up the private
Privilege-Mr. Yewch.uk
members' hour assigned to me will result in our getting control of our own constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion has been made that the House revert to routine proceedings at four o'clock this afternoon for the purpose of receiving a statement, in accordance with our usual recent practice with respect to the making of statements, by the Prime Minister. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I gave some indication yesterday of an intention to finalize today a question of privilege of some importance which was raised a few days ago by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). It was contributed to by several hon. members, very significantly by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), and in turn, because it involved certain allegations respecting remarks by the hon. member, by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt).
The question of privilege raises two very serious problems, the first having to do with the conduct of affairs in our standing committees. I want to make it clear that, while I have given several indications of my reluctance to alter the practice of the Chair of staying away from reviewing decisions of any sort of the standing committees except within the proper proceedings of the House, it is perfectly understood that questions of privilege, if they in fact exist, are not confined to incidents which take place in this chamber. Obviously, questions of privilege can arise from events which take place outside the chamber, and therefore, it follows, in the standing committees. There is no question about that.
If, in fact, a matter does give rise to a question of privilege within our precedents and practices, whether that takes place outside the chamber, perhaps in a standing committee, would in no way disqualify it. However, the situation which is before us, it seems to me, involves not only a disagreement on substance but perhaps also a disagreement on procedure. It may involve a question of order in the committee. I say that it "may". But, indeed, all these are questions which are within the competence of the standing committee to deal with, and in fact the standing committee dealt with it in one way or another. However that was resolved in the standing committee, it seems to me that it did involve questions of order, procedure or substance in the committee and ought not to be a part of the concern of the Chair.
I think the reasoning for that is obvious. When it was seen that there was serious disagreement about the interpretation which ought to have been put on words, events

Privilege-Mr. Yewchuk
and the manner in which they took place and their intentions, the House has been very careful in the past to avoid the immense difficulties which would obviously arise if the House were to constitute itself into one standing committee for the purpose of investigating proceedings which have taken place in another standing committee. Therefore, I would reject-except under the clearly established and narrow definitions to which we have referred in the past-that privilege, and in this respect it must almost constitute an obstruction of the ability of a member to function. Therefore, in respect to the events which took place in the standing committee and the disagreements between hon. members there, I find that they might constitute a number of matters of great concern, but they do not qualify as a question of privilege. Therefore, I will not review the events which took place there.
However, there is another aspect to this question, and that is the comments of a journalist who was described in the development of the question of privilege by the hon. member for Athabasca as an employee of the CTV network, Mr. Eric Mailing. It has been suggested that he used the following language in editorializing on the performance of certain members of the official opposition in that committee:
The Conservative representation on the committee consisted of four doctors and a more shameless defence of the witness I have never seen. The way these doctors stick together you would think they had a sponge in a stiff-the entire lot of them.
I will perhaps reserve until later any comments I would want to make about the quality of that language or the quality of the reporting. The concern I have now is not so much with that as it is with the very difficult and very real problem which has been revealed by this question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Athabasca: that is, the balance which must be maintained between the right of individul members, or the membership of this House collectively, to punish contempt of this House or its members and to punish libels against its members or aspersions on their conduct and, on the other hand, the right of a journalist, or indeed of a citizen, to make public comment, to make criticism and in fact to express opinion which, obviously, is not subject to questions of truth but to the standards of opinion as to the performance of elected members.
There have been very few incidents in which journalists have been censured in this way in the history of the House of Commons, for the obvious reason that-and I think quite appropriately-it has always been decided, in situations of that sort, that where there was a doubt between the two rights which were enjoyed, that doubt ought always to be resolved in favour of the public, not only to criticize us but in fact to make comments about their political attitudes toward us.
There does seem to be a suggestion from time to time that privilege extends to us, as members of this House, a sort of special protection above and beyond that enjoyed by the ordinary citizen in this regard. I think it ought to be very clearly stated that this, in fact, is not the case. There is no historical support for that notion, nor do I see any reason why that should be the situation.

The protection in respect of public comment, made either by a citizen or a journalist, that is enjoyed by every private citizen is, and ought to be, more than adequate for the protection of members of this House in that regard. Rather than attempt to describe it in my own language, I find the comments of great interest and relevance in the report recently tabled of the select committee on parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom. I will quote from pages 15 and 16 of that report; I think members will find it illuminating. Bearing in mind this is not an authoritative document by that parliament, but is really the result of a very serious and thorough study of the question of prili-vege-and I will in a moment be making reference to the study we are about to launch here at the instance of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)-I will quote from paragraph 43. I think the language is interesting:
The proposal made in paragraph 42 is fully consistent with the principle which your committee believe to be right, that the House should be slow and reluctant to use its penal powers to stifle criticism or even abuse, whether of the machinery of the House, of a member or of a identifiable group of members, however strongly the criticism may be expressed and however unjustifiable it may appear. Your committee regard such criticism as the life blood of democracy. In their view the sensible politician expects and even welcomes criticism of this nature. Nonetheless, a point may be reached at which conduct ceases to be merely intemperate criticism and abuse and becomes or is liable to become an improper obstruction of the functions of parliament. For such cases, however rare, the penal powers must be preserved and the House must be prepared to exercise them.
The second quotation is from the following page, part way down paragraph 46, as follows:
In your committee's opinion it would be an indefensible abuse of power if a member could evade such a defence by invoking the penal jurisdiction of the House. The citizen has prima facie a right to make fair comment upon such activity of a member as is a matter of public interest; his right is even stronger to speak and publish the truth of a member's conduct. These rights should not in the normal way be defeated by the use of the penal jurisdiction of the House. The exceptions to this general principle are likely to be rare. But if the rights of a citizen, though enforceable in the courts of law, are so exercised as to be likely improperly to obstruct the member in the performance of his parliamentary duty, it must be within the power of the House to restrain him.
I adopt that reasoning, and I think I can simply state that however reprehensible and insulting the language used by the columnist or journalist referred to by the hon. member, and however unnecessary it may seem to be in order to report the proceedings of this House to stoop to that kind of language and comment, I cannot find in it a transgression of the rights, collectively or individually, to such an extent that the privilege procedures ought to be invoked by this House in order to censure the journalist.
Therefore, being in some doubt about that, I would resolve the doubt in favour of the public's right to criticize us and find, again, that no question of privilege exists. This is not to say there are not legitimate concerns raised by the hon. member for Athabasca. Often this is typical of the case in which the precedents and practices vis-a-vis a privilege as we know it, and which is confined, after all, to the very narrow term, while they do not fit the situation in which the House finds itself they nevertheless seem to be the only way out for a member to attempt to retaliate for this kind of language used in public.
Therefore, I say that the hon. member for Athabasca has, as other members have in the past, raised a question of very legitimate and serious concern. It arises, I might also

say in passing, whenever members of the House get into the unfortunate habit or practice of departing from the subject matter of debate at the moment and get into personal references of any sort about members. It occasionally happens in the heat of debate, and we all experience that. I think we all learn the lesson that when this happens, the reason it has been traditionally ruled a disorder-when it does occur-is for the simple reason that it is never really truly relevant to the subject matter under debate. If hon. members can bring themselves to refrain from the practice of departing from the subject matter of debate and getting on to either the qualifications, personal or otherwise, of members or their own personal record or performance, certainly a good deal of this difficult could be avoided.
However, I do say to the hon. member for Athabasca, to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) and others who participated in this discussion, that it did raise problems that are not isolated and are very serious.
I think I have made my feelings clear about some of the aspects of the problems that are before us. I do want to assure hon. members that in launching into the work, largely, as I say, at the initiation of the hon. member for Peace River, on the study here in this parliament-over which I will preside-of the rights and immunities of members of the House of Commons, not only will the work of the select committee in the United Kingdom form a very important working paper for us, but this experience will certainly be given very careful consideration in the deliberations and work of that committee, in the hope that we can expose some clear guidelines for the protection of hon. members in situations of this sort and a clearer understanding of privilege as it relates to these kinds of situations.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Robinson.
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Rompkey.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[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: 3,148 and 4,967.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): 
Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Departments of Industry Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. In that the Employment Support Program has been disbanded the information is not readily available.
2. Records of grants to companies are not maintained on a Constituency basis. However, an estimated total of $200,000 has been granted to sawmill companies in the region by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce during the period 1969-1975.
1.	The total amount granted by the government to FOREX, Inc., under the authority of the Regional Development Incentives Act, reads as follows: (a) In 1969: none, (b) In 1970: none, (c) In 1971: none, (d) In 1972: none, (e) In 1973: $409,268. (f) In 1974: $176,252. (g) To September 30, 1975: none.
2.	The total amount granted by the Department to sawmill companies and connected firms in the Constituency of Villeneuve, reads as follows: (a) In 1969: none, (b) In 1970: $465,950. (c) In 1971: $1,060,875. (d) In 1972: $1,226,323. (e) In 1973: none, (f) In 1974: $84,867. (g) To September 30, 1975: $199,400.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,507, what were the amounts paid to each company listed in the answer to Parts 2 and 3?
2.	Is the information available by company in the same manner as subsidies or assistance to the railways and, if not for what reason?
3.	What is the government's estimate of payments for the year 1975?
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Transport): The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1.
Payments under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act
1974-75 Fiscal Year	
Intra-Regional	
Eastern Transport Limited	$571,948.54
Moffat Brothers Moving & Storage Ltd.	426,378.28
Day and Ross Ltd.	378,730.54
Road and Sea Transport Ltd.	369,131.92
Thompson Transfer Co. Ltd.	354,139.12
M & D Transfer Ltd.	223,490.69
Brunswick Petroleum Transport Ltd.	172,792.69
Easson's Limited	152,909.74
Roch Roy Transport Ltee	145,544.89
Cement Cartage Co. Ltd.	145,449.18
Midland Transport Limited	139,322.27
G. M. Armour & Son Ltd.	137,114.51
Roy's Midway Transfer	133,533.02
Bowness Transport Ltd.	124,902.07
Heffler Trucking Ltd.	120,534.75

Order Paper Questions
	Westbound	Selective
Day and Ross Ltd.	$708,960.70	$261,297.52Rimouski Transport Limitee	186,130.11	31,619.86Smith Transport Maritime Ontario Freight	178,100.57	56,537.97Lines	128,773.26	60,039.24Speedway Express Limited	121,822.27	34,740.41Hebb's Transport Limited	97,695.75	36,203.48Transbois Inc.	90,640.98	NILSt. Lambert Transport	89,570.59	NILJumbo Motor Express Ltd.	82,602.53	37,215.54O. Belanger Transport Inc.	63,094.03	NILTransport D'Anjou Moffat Brothers Moving &	58,460.40	16,515.42Storage Ltd.	56,190.91	NILTransport Theberge Lt<5e Household Movers & Ship-	55,351.45	9,303.98pers Ltd. Maritime Warehousing &	51,034.58	NILTransfer Co. Ltd.	48,722.32	NIL2.	Information is not readily available in the form requested. In excess of 3,000 truckers currently participate in the subsidy program and when details of individual payments are requested they must be compiled from accounting records. Current man-year constraints do not permit the compilation of such data on a continuing basis since staff would have to be diverted from other essential duties.3.	Within region-17.1 million dollars. Westbound out of region-3.4 million dollars. Selective assistance-1.2 million dollars.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 4,147?


Mr. Lachance: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,514, for what reason and under what authority does Air Canada charge a minimal fee of $5 for clearance of mail sent by air freight?
2.	Will the government consider asking Air Canada to cease such a pratice?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, as for the Canadian Transport Commission, the answer is as follows: 1. Airlines are required by the Canadian Transport Commission to publish in tariffs, charges made for services rendered by

them. Air Canada and many other carriers provide certain services in connection with incoming shipments of air freight requiring customs clearance. There is a terminal service charge of $5 for the processing of "immediate type" customs clearance outside of normal customs business hours.
As for Transport Canada, the answer is as follows: 2. Tariffs of fees charged by air carriers are in effect only so long as they are deemed satisfactory by the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. The above fee has been filed in accordance with the Air Carrier Regulations and has been accepted by the Air Transport Committee. The government does not interfere with the rate-making process established by the Canadian Transport Commission.

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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, before lauching into a general discussion on the bill before us, I invited the House to join me in an adventurous fantasy last night. It appeared that shortly after the Criminal Code had been amended by Bill C-83, a gang of foreign invaders had landed on the beaches of the northwest arm of the beautiful constituency of Halifax-East Hants and were prepared to do battle with Canada. Canadian soldiers, equipped in the usual manner, arrived at the scene to find that the enemy was armed with nothing more dangerous, but certainly a very dangerous weapon indeed, than the revised Criminal Code of Canada.
The first encounter between the Canadian soldier and the foreign invader worsted the Canadian soldier. He found that under section 89 of the proposed amendments he was certainly entitled to carry a rifle. However, he found under section 88 that this did not give him the right to carry ammunition in it. Therefore, said the foreign invader-and the Canadian soldier had no way of answering back-the Canadian defender was liable to two years in penitentiary for committing an indictable offence.
The scene now switches to today. There are three more episodes before I point out how the war was won or lost. The Canadian soldier then found that pointing the firearm
April 9, 1976

without lawful excuse, and his gun was loaded, would not give him a lawful excuse: under section 99 he was liable to five years by way of indictment. The odd thing is that if he had pointed an unloaded weapon at the foreign invader, that would have been quite lawful: he was entitled to carry an unloaded weapon, but not a loaded one. This would add five years to the two years he had already racked up.
The Canadian soldier, in a friendly argument with the foreign invader, pointed out that he, the Canadian soldier, came from the great riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grace in Montreal. He thought his member had something to do with the government, and that indeed his member was the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). One would have thought the Solicitor General would know the law. The foreign invader pointed out, "Really, my dear fellow, back home we call him a necessity." On the way to the prison camp, the Canadian soldier and his foreign captor wandered through a former rifle range where they found some cartridges scattered about. The Canadian soldier was willing to continue on his way, but the foreign invader pointed out that he had committed another offence. There was ammunition obviously lost or abandoned, and under section 101 of the Criminal Code as proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford)-
Every one commits an offence who, upon finding a prohibited weapon or restricted weapon or other firearm or ammunition that he has reasonable grounds to believe has been lost or abandoned, does not forthwith
(a) deliver it to a peace officer-
When he pointed out that they were only used cases from ammunition, the foreign invader was again able to up-end him by pointing to the definition section of Bill C-83 section, 82(1), which reads:
"ammunition" means ammunition for a firearm and includes any component, element or part-
Of course, the cartridge would be such a part. The foreign invader said, "For this, my good fellow, you are liable to another five years as being guilty of an indictable offence." The war has not taken place very long, but in the first half hour the poor Canadian soldier has racked up 12 years in one of Her Majesty's penitentiaries.
They continued on their way to the maritime command, passing through some of the most beautiful parts of Canada, namely, the streets of Halifax. The Canadian soldier, by then thoroughly nonplussed, entered into friendly conversation with his foreign captor. He suggested that maybe some of the large weapons used in a very brief war should some day go into the war museum on Citadel Hill. The soldier turned out to be a member of the board of governors of that great institution. The foreign invader pointed out that the museum on Citadel Hill was really a private institution. It was not part of the armed forces of the country; therefore, it could not contain within it prohibited weapons. As we all know, prohibited weapons are what they say they are in the definition section, 82(1). The prohibition is also set forth in 86(1) as follows:
Every one who has in his possession a prohibited weapon
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years-
The poor soldier, by working as a member of the board of governors in a non-department of national defence-owned museum on Citadel Hill in Halifax, was guilty of another
Measures Against Crime
indictable offence if he should so much as take any automatic or prohibited weapon to that museum. That would add another five years. It is now 17 years that has been racked up against the poor Canadian soldier, and he has not even had the pleasure of firing a shot at his tormentor. He suggested they could perhaps go down to the Point Pleasant park commission. In the south-end of Halifax there are a number of weapons from foreign wars that are much admired by the citizenry when they go there. The foreign invader pointed out, "No, it is not a governmental commission" and that he would be liable to five years, or anybody at the commission if they took some of these prohibited weapons within their control.
They passed by the legislature in Halifax. Outside were some of the guns left over from the gun battle in which the Shannon overcame the Chesapeake. The foreign visitor pointed out it was perfectly legal for the government of Nova Scotia to have those guns there, although the Canadian soldier said that the war that goes on between Gerry Regan and John Buchanan, the premier and the leader of the opposition, sometimes gets more explosive than any other situation than you can imagine. But no, the Chesapeake and Shannon memorabilia may remain on the grounds of the provincial legislature because that is government and not some privately run organization. Finally, the Canadian soldier turns to his captor and says, "It really would have been simpler if I had shot you dead." The foreign captor says, "I will forget that I heard that remark, my good man. After all, on top of the 17 years you have already racked up, you could be put on a peace bond by one of the local magistrates." That, Mr. Speaker, is the fantasy.
Do not expect me to illustrate some of the rather improbable drafting that has gone into the measure we are dealing with today. However, I want to state that the story did have a happy ending. The Canadian soldiers did win the war against these foreign invaders who came armed with the Canadian Criminal Code as amended by Bill C-83. Some of our Canadian soldiers were bright enough to break into a museum which contained medieval crossbows. As we all know, medieval crossbows are one of the greatest weapons ever invented by man. They found that these medieval crossbows had not been placed on the prohibited weapon list as defined by section 82(1) of the act, nor had they been included as prohibited weapons by the regulations made by the governor in council pursuant to this act. Therefore, it was perfectly in order to use medieval crossbows. The enemy was routed, and Halifax-East Hants and the rest of Canada was kept for Canadians.
I will now deal with the philosophic approach to Bill C-83 and to the matter of what is popularly called gun control. I suppose anything that in itself that can be dangerous should have an element of control by the state. Certainly we think that control is necessary when we deal with drugs and alcohol. It would, therefore, seem to be a simple matter, if one asks oneself the question, "Should there be some control over weapons which could be dangerous?" to reply, "Yes, of course there must be". But what sort of approach should be taken? It is here that the bill bothers me. I read through it, come to clause 4 on page 37 and see that some draftsman-and I hope the Minister of Justice finds out who he is and strings him up by his thumbs, because I think this is a horrible example of drafting-has set down words permitting the governor in

April 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
council by proclamation to declare what is called "a firearms amnesty period".
Mr. Speaker, I always thought that an amnesty was a retroactive pardon which was given for criminal behaviour so that the criminal act could somehow be forgotten. But this bill creates criminal actions and then has the colossal gall to say that the whole population, or perhaps one million Canadians, will be guilty of a crime but that an amnesty provision will be brought in to clean up the situation. Any government which permits a provision of that kind to be brought before us really has to do a lot of explaining to the Canadian people. To my mind, the use of the language to which I have referred is the most offensive thing that occurs in a large number of very offensive pages. This is why I support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and, indeed, had something to do with the strategy which inspired it.
The Minister of Justice will find life much simpler if he takes out clauses 3 and 4 and pages 1 to 38 of this measures, puts them aside, and goes on with the rest of the bill. It is true that what remains will need purification and clarification, but I have the impression the other parts of the legislation could be expeditiously handled. I suggest to the minister that he will find himself in a long, cool spring, a hot summer and a chilly fall if he believes the measure as presently drafted and submitted to us is one which is likely to be accepted by the House.
I know that members opposite also have their reservations. The parliamentary secretary who preceded me has reservations with regard to the measure. After listening the other day to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), I said to myself, "That is the speech I was going to make." After indulging in a little political persiflage, he dealt with all the issues which to my mind were germane to what we are considering. I hope the Minister of Justice has the political sense to recognize that the motion put forward by my hon. friend from Calgary North is one way out of a bad situation.
It may be that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, by working very hard-it is a superb committee-will be able to straighten out the kinds and overcome the four or five howlers I have drawn attention to already, as well as a number of others of which I have made note. It may be the committee will find itself able to straighten out certain of the technical details. But it is improbably we shall be able to straighten out the philosophy which lies behind a bill which would suddenly, at one swoop, turn a million or so Canadians into criminals who are to be given amnesty.
Surely, if the government is setting its mind upon gun control, the first target should be the criminal element; it should use every legitimate device to grab their weapons, to throw the book at them. Going through this bill, I find only three or four clauses which deal with criminal use and related punishment-a quarter of a page in one place, with two clauses in it, and another quarter of a page later on. Instead of dealing with criminals, this legislation would create criminals, and in a democratic society, when you go out of your way to turn a large class of people into

criminals, quasi-criminals or pseudo-criminals, either the society or the government is very sick indeed.
Let me give an illustration of what the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General talk about doing but are really not able to do. The Solicitor General has made the point that most murders, where a gun is used as a weapon, are committed by the victim's relatives or friends. Most of these murders are, in fact, within that category. I ask the hon. gentleman to look at clause 103(1) and ask himself, if murders really take place in people's homes, as many of them do, in tragic circumstances often associated with too much liquor on a Saturday night, whether clause 103(1) really bills the bill. A former commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. L. H. Nicholson, a man for whom I have great respect- I hope he will be appearing before the committee, giving us his advice-points out that sometimes the people in the neighbourhood are in the best position to head off trouble. They can hear a quarrel; they might know of a weapon which could lead to fatal consequences, and decide to alert the police.
Mr. Speaker, the sanctity of a person's home is one thing, but clause 103(1) does not permit the police to enter a home in such circumstances, so doubtless we shall continue to hear of Saturday night tragedies. If there were any ground for being peremptory and ignoring the old attitude that a person's home is his castle, it would surely be a situation where neighbours know that something bad is going on and something much worse might happen unless there is speedy intervention. I will ask the Solicitor General further questions about this aspect when the bill goes to committee.
Another aspect which concerns me-and perhaps this is a special interest of mine-is the use made of the power of regulation. I refer specifically to the powers set forth in clauses 82 and 106. Regulations and orders in council have been a special topic of mine for a number of years. Regulations can be very strange animals indeed, and they tend to reflect the philosophy of the minister in charge of the department concerned. Incidentally, the ministers I have in mind are not here; as a matter of fact, no ministers are here at the present time. Yes, I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) is here. The law officers of the Crown are not here, though. Perhaps they are out advising one of their colleagues who is in trouble. In any event, the acceptability of a regulation depends to a large extent on whether or not the minister is an autocratic type. Later this session, when the House sees the report of one of the House committees in a month or so, it might ponder my words.
Another matter that bothers me is the question of guarantors. I think that does go too far. I was going to ask the Minister of Justice about this, and I hope someone on the other side will pass this along to him. We keep hearing disturbing reports behind the scenes to the effect that when the regulations are drafted there will be a requirement to list weapons on the backs of licences. This report is fairly current and I hope the hon. member from Lake-shore is giving me his attention: he is familiar with the regulatory process. I hope the minister can provide an answer if he does take further part in this debate, or at least that someone on the other side will give me an answer whether or not this will be done.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it will help much to be told what goes on in other countries in the matter of gun control. Switzerland has been mentioned, but Switzerland has a different tradition. New York City was referred to, and so was Ireland. They have tighter controls in Japan, yet the same homicide rate as Canada. All of this has been thrown into the melting pot in this debate. I do not know whether any of these matters are really germane to the situation in Canada. I do not think there is any Canadian city that quite approaches the situation in New York. They seem to be degenerating into a rat race and it seems to me that city is on its last legs. Although our Canadian cities have a crime rate, they are nowhere near that of New York City's. Neither have we got into the woeful state that they have in Ireland. We are too large and have too much interdependence with other countries to be a sort of Switzerland. We are not insular in the way Japan is.
The problems that we have to solve are surely "made in Canada" problems. We have to consider that we are mainly city folk-or are tending to be-with a fair element of country folk. It is not too long ago that our ancestors were scraping up a livelihood by running fur lines and the like, and they needed weapons to fend off bears and other marauders from the forest and to find food. To me, Mr. Speaker, our traditions are much different from the other countries cited in this debate. We must pay some regard to the traditions of the past from which we have come.
One of the obvious defects of this measure is that there has really been no consultation about it. The wildlife people and the trapshooting people have never been consulted about the bill. I have been told time and time again, and presume it must be so, that somewhere a group of people gathered together in Ottawa and put together the 37 or 38 pages of legislation that is under discussion today, using a very autocratic and arbitrary approach. They compounded the legislation with rules, regulations and all sorts of red tape and set out to catch crooks, turning too many other people into crooks in the process instead of concentrating on the crooks themselves.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, in committee, in a spirit of reasonableness we can separate these gun control provisions from the rest of the bill, send the bill back to the House and then get on with formulating some decent gun control legislation instead of the stuff with which we have been presented.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin); and I should like to wish him well on Monday.


Mr. Lies Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your good wishes and for recognizing me at this time. At the outset I want to say I support the legislation in a general way in principle: but let me also say that I have some degree of sympathy for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and am tempted to vote for that amendment and may well do so.
I say that because I find myself in a position similar to the one I found myself in when we were debating the western grain stabilization bill. I or one of my colleagues moved a similar motion, that the subject matter of the bill
Measures Against Crime
be referred to committee for further study, but I supported the legislation in principle. I see nothing inconsistent with that action. However, I want to proceed to deal briefly with the major sections of the legislation and to express not only my feelings on the matter but to reflect to some extent the feelings of many of my colleagues and also the attorney general of my own province of Saskatchewan.
I feel that the split of first and second degree murder, on the present basis, is sensible and that the provision of a minimum of 25 years' imprisonment for first degree murder and at least ten years for second degree murder before being eligible for parole is an improvement and will be looked upon as such by the public. However, practical problems arise, of course. Twenty-five years looks like forever to most of us, and a prisoner may well feel that he is in a nothing to lose situation. We may be required to provide additional protection and incentives for prison guards.
The new parole provisions, including the three-judge panel, may decrease the eligible time for parole after 15 years, but this may diminish the deterrent aspect of such a sentence which, after all, was its main purpose. So long as there is a way of avoiding the maximum penalty, you run the risk of the deterrent factor being lost. However, I think the risk of losing some of the deterrent effect is minimal and I, for one, am prepared to give several years of trial to that particular provision.
The power to set up special provincial commissions of inquiry into organized crime is potentially a good provision but adds little to good police work. It can be a good thing when used as a public pacifier, but it really depends on the provinces and is not really a criticism of the legislation.
I want now to move to the crime detection and electronic surveillance amendments, some of which are generally welcome. I submit the major defect is the departure from the rest of our criminal law wherein an unauthorized interception is inadmissible though evidence arising from such interception will be received. I think this has the effect of encouraging unauthorized interceptions, something I suggest parliament should not do. Either it is all admissible or none should be. Lack of basic philosophy in this part of the legislation seems to me evident.
Another concern has to do with the elimination of notice to a person whose telephone has been tapped. This portion of the legislation has potential for abuse. I do not think anyone can question that. My colleagues and I know the attorney general of Saskatchewan came down on the side of the present system whereby notice should be given, to ensure accurate police work and to protect individual rights.
I am more than surprised-in fact, I am shocked-that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and his colleagues would even consider introducing such changes in the law relating to electronic surveillance. I would have thought they would have been the last persons to bring in such a change. The legislation we now have in this regard, I believe, is sufficient. It should be left as it is. There may be some minor improvements which could be made to some parts of it, but certainly this major power in respect of

Measures Against Crime
electronic surveillance and the unauthorized ones that can be allowed, I submit, cannot be countenanced by this or any other parliament. I hope the minister and his colleagues will have second thoughts and agree that this provision should be withdrawn. Too many decades have been spent in this and many other countries in the expansion and extension of the guaranteeing of civil liberties and the freedom of individual citizens for us to take this retrograde step in respect of this legislation.
In respect of dangerous offenders, the amendments remove some of the previous formality without getting rid of the former sanctions. I think this is a general improvement. If it should fail to achieve its objective of protecting the public against dangerous offenders, sexual and otherwise, the fault will be with the judicial system and not the law. Concerning where the fault may lie, it seems to me if faults of this kind should become evident through experience in the enforcement of this legislation, it will be incumbent on government and parliament in the future to bring in further legislation to correct any faults there may be in the judicial system.
On the matter of the custody and release of inmates, I think it is high time the absurdity in respect of the calculation of sentences should be removed. At the present time a sentence does not mean what it says, and very few lawyers in this country are capable of calculating a release date in a complicated situation. Earned remission is inevitable under present rehabilitation reasoning and may help in the control of inmates. I, for one, agree with the idea of earned remission. The conduct of the prisoner himself will decide what length of sentence he will serve. That onus in respect of individual responsibility on the part of the inmate is not only a good rehabilitative feature, but I feel it is one which will help in the control of inmates and their behaviour.
The increase in deterrent for escape is realistic, but the effort to provide a greater degree of security and safety in prisons will not be accomplished without the clear statement that a prisoner, by his very status, loses certain rights. Once again there is evident here lack of a clear philosophical base, which will continue to create uncertainties and strife within our jails.
I agree with the increase in the deterrent for escape and attempted escape. That penalty should be there and should be added to the sentence which remains to be served. I would hope that those who are far more expert than I, those involved in the law who have great experience and training in this regard, will take a further look at the legislation.
There has been a great deal of emotional hysteria around the country in respect of this legislation and different parts of it. I find this comes from both extremes, those who are for and those who are against portions or all of the legislation. Some of this emotional hysteria, I submit, has been generated by people who in many cases should know better. I have been appalled by some of the outrageous lengths to which some people have gone to criticize this legislation whether in respect of the control of firearms, the abolition of the death penalty or any other feature.
They have attempted to stir up emotional, unreasoned, inane and insensible hysteria around the country. I think that is very unfortunate. I would have expected more from many of those spokesmen. I am sad to say that even some

members of parliament, perhaps unwittingly, have tried to attract more of that unreasoned hysteria and emotionalism, which has degenerated to sheer absurdity in some of the arguments put forward in opposition to portions or all of this legislation. That is no help to parliament or to the government in arriving at good, sensible, reasonable and enforcible amendments to our Criminal Code or additions to the Criminal Code. I would hope that the level of the arguments put forward against some of the measures in this legislation would reach a higher level in respect of some hon. members than has been the case so far.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock, so that I may complete my remarks later?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, before turning to the main part of my speech regarding firearms control, I want to add a few more comments to those I made prior to one o'clock on the matter of electronic surveillance. You will recall that I said I was shocked that the government would want to wreck the civil liberties aspect of the law with regard to electronic surveillance.
I only want to add to those remarks that we must keep in the legislation the notification features. Anyone whose telephone has been tapped or who has been subject to electronic surveillance in any other way is entitled to be notified within 90 days after the fact that surveillance was carried out in that manner. Secondly, the provision requiring police to obtain a court order or a warrant from a member of the judiciary not only must be maintained, but I think all police forces should want that provision in the legislation, even if it means having to get a judge or a magistrate out of bed at two o'clock in the morning to obtain such authorization if it is that urgent. That would be the route to go.
In my opinion, there should always be a judge on call, similar to doctors. If he is needed by the police force in the carrying out of their duties in order to live up to some part of the law, there is no reason a judge cannot be available at all times to assist the police in that respect. So I hope the present provisions on electronic surveillance will be left as they are and not amended in such a manner as to erode civil liberties and the basic rights of the citizens of this country.
I was saying, also, prior to one o'clock that in my opinion there has been a great deal of nonsense, hysterical and idiotic argument put forward against some parts or all of this legislation by people who I believe should know better. In fact, many of them do know better, and I regret to say that some of them are members of this chamber.

I will support any firearms control legislation which is reasonable and enforceable. As one who has owned a rifle and a shotgun for well over 30 years, in addition to having them trained in the air force and in the army in the use of Sten guns, Bren guns, .50 calibre machine-guns, Lee-Enfield rifles, and so forth, I think I can speak with some knowledge and experience on the subject. I said I will support any firearms control legislation which is sensible, reasonable and enforceable. I feel that owners of what are called long guns-rifles or shotguns-or any firearms under this legislation in most cases feel individual responsibility for the care, handling, safe-keeping and use of those firearms; and so they should. It seems to me that any potential liability of the firearm's owner has always been there.
I feel that having to obtain a licence to own a firearm will increase the sense of individual responsibility which each firearm owner already has, or should have. I also feel that the liability part should be limited so that the licensed firearm owner who has taken reasonable care and precautions will not be subject to liability if someone else misuses his firearm.
I think that in some ways licensing owners of firearms will help reduce the accessibility and availability of firearms to those who are either unfit or unable to own or use one. I am thinking not only of the criminal element, but also of children who in too many tragic instances have been wounded or killed because of firearms which were not safely stored and for which reasonable precautions were not taken. Too many tragedies occur in this way every year. There was a tragedy in Regina just last year. A careless and irresponsible firearm owner left a loaded shotgun in a room in a house. Two children ended up playing with it, and one blew the other in half. If the licensing provision will increase the sense of responsibility each of us should have in any case, then it is a step in the right direction.
With regard to reasonable precautions and safeguards, the overwhelming majority of firearms owners already keep their weapons in a safe condition. They do not leave them loaded in their houses. In fact, many have their rifles stored, or a rifle hanging on the wall has the bolt removed: it is locked away in some other place and the ammunition is also kept separate. If anyone were to steal the firearm or start playing with it, it would not be capable of being fired. So if a licence to own a firearm requires reasonable safeguards, we will have made a good move toward reducing the horrifying number of deaths and woundings, whether deliberate or accidental, which occur every year in this country.
There has been much talk about two people being required to endorse or to recommend a person in a firearm's licence application. I agree with that provision. I have hunted with many people since I was 15 years of age and, quite frankly, there are probably half a dozen individuals who are friends of mine and with whom I have gone hunting once or twice but with whom I will never go again. In no way would I endorse their licence applications if they were to ask me, because they are not fit to own a firearm. I would treat that matter in the same as I would an oath, an affidavit, a passport application or on any
Measures Against Crime
document where one's name and signature signifies his word, his honesty and his desire to abide by the law. I, and I think most citizens, regard endorsation as a serious matter. I do not think many people would endorse lightly an application for a licence for a firearm.
There should be a large number of licence issuers. For example, officers of gun clubs, whether they be collectors, sports shooters, target shooters, antique gun collectors or whatever, should be licence issuers. They should be authorized to issue firearms' licences to all members of their own clubs. In the main, these are very responsible, well run organizations and their members know how to handle guns and how to keep them safely. They can be considered as suitable to issue licences to their own members to own firearms. I submit that this would help relieve some of the administrative load from local police departments and other officials, particularly in large cities. For example, in Regina I suspect that anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 individuals belong to gun clubs. The licences could be issued by the officers of their own clubs, and I think they should be.
Yesterday the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) made some excellent points and in the main I agree with him. I suggest to this House and to the government that consideration should be given to exempting the licensing requirements for residents in the northern area of Canada, say north of the fifty-fifth or fifty-sixth parallel.


Mr. Ellis:: The sixtieth parallel.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It needs to be somewhere south of the sixtieth parallel because some of the northern parts of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Labrador should also be exempted from the licensing requirements except in what could be called urban centres, for example, centres with populations in excess of 5,000, such as Yellowknife and Whitehorse. In those places licensing should still be required, but the residents of the rest of the area should be exempt from the licensing provisions. Non-residents such as myself who might go there on a hunting trip should still be required to hold a licence to own firearms. The people in those northern regions know how to handle firearms and for the most part handle them properly. I suspect that the people of the north have a much better safety record than people in the settled parts and in the so-called urbanized parts of Canada. I would feel no hesitation in exempting that part of Canada from the licensing provisions. I support the idea that anyone who is to be given a licence to own firearms should be required to demonstrate fitness to own those firearms. Frankly, I think there should be tests on gun handling and gun safety. One should be able to show some competence in that regard.
Under the provisions of the migratory game birds legislation of the federal government, and provincial laws respecting upland birds and big game, there should be some kind of game identification, hunter safety and courtesy tests for those who wish a licence to own firearms or for those who wish to purchase a licence to hunt.

April 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
I will support firearms legislation that I consider reasonable, sensible and enforceable for another reason that I think is the most important of all. I am a little tired of those who run around spouting what I call the cowboy syndrome. They look and sound like some hick sheriff from Texas, and act like some seven-year old boy playing with a toy gun. Surely we must put an end to this nonsense of anyone with a prison record, a history of violence, of insanity or extreme emotional instability being able to walk in off the street and purchase a rifle or a shotgun. Every responsible gun owner I have talked to agrees that we must put an end to that kind of sloppy nonsense.
We must put an end to a situation in which a 12-year old or a 14-year old can purchase a firearm by mail order. There has been a history in this country of mail order houses selling some weapons that were in fact unsafe; for example, shot guns with twist barrels or old rifles with worn actions. With today's high-powered ammunition, these guns could blow up in your face. There has been little or no control over the quality of these mail order weapons.
Similarly, I feel there needs to be a greater measure of responsibility taken by manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and transporters of firearms and ammunition. Too often the criminal element obtains firearms by hijacking trucks between the factory and the wholesaler. Insufficient precautions and safeguards are taken in the transportation of weapons. Too often wholesalers and retailers are absolutely sloppy about the way they keep firearms. You can go into retail outlets and find guns hanging out in the open in the stores and an expert shoplifter could have a ball. A good burglar could do well by emptying the whole case of weapons and ammunition in an evening. There are insufficient precautions taken by wholesalers, retailers and transporters of firearms and ammunition.
I think it also should be a requirement to keep records similar to those kept by druggists. They keep very close records and are very meticulous in the handling of drugs which could be harmful or dangerous. No druggist or citizen objects to that. Surely it is nothing more than reasonable to expect that the sellers of weapons and ammunition should keep up to date records on these sales, including the names of the purchasers, the serial numbers, the quantities, the quality, the description, and so on. Surely that is nothing more than good sense. No reputable businessman that I know would complain about this. No operator of a reputable gun store or department store I have talked to objects to this. In fact, some of them keep that kind of record on their own now, and it is to their credit that they do. I think it should be a provision of the law that this kind of sensible safeguard should be required of manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and transporters.
Much has been made about the licence fees. I think a reasonable fee of $5 or so for a licence could not be complained about seriously. The government should not attempt to recover the total costs of licensing from the licensee who wants to own a firearm. That would be putting an unfair financial burden on a small number of people who would be expected to pay the total cost of this measure which attempts to provide greater security for the public at large.

The federal government should not attempt to collect the full cost from the licence fee, neither should it foist the major part of this cost on the municipalities and provincial governments, since the purpose of this measure is to provide greater safety for the public as a whole. On that basis, surely the public as a whole should bear the major part of that cost through the national government.
If this government and this parliament want maximum co-operation and assistance from the police forces, the municipalities and the provincial governments, the Minister of Justice should be saying that the national treasury will reimburse those sections of society for administering and implementing this legislation. I think it would be unfair to ask the already over-burdened municipal budgets and, in many cases, provincial resources to carry this additional financial burden. I hope the government will do something about that when the bill is before the committee, because the great majority of the people would, in my opinion, support reasonable and enforceable firearms legislation.
There are some ridiculous aspects of this legislation that, hopefully, will be eliminated by the committee or by the House at report stage. We have heard some equally ridiculous statements about the harmful effect of the legislation, most of which have been dreamed up or imagined by those who want to incite unreasoning hysteria across the country. There have been a few in this chamber guilty of that, Mr. Speaker.
In closing, I want to say again that I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North. I may well support that amendment and support the bill in principle on second reading. However, unless the government makes some significant improvement at the committee or report stage-and I hope accepts some sensible and reasonable proposals from members of the opposition and from its own backbenchers-I may find myself having to vote against the legislation on third reading. I may have to conduct myself in the same way I did in respect of the grain stabilization bill. I make no apologies whatsoever for the way I conducted myself in that respect.
It seems to me the government might well take seriously the idea of submitting the subject matter of this bill to the committee where most of the witness could be heard. When the committee then met later on to deal with the actual legislation, it would be in a position to deal with the whole subject much more efficiently and much more quickly. If the subject matter of this legislation were referred to a committee, a great deal more light could be generated by those who wish to submit briefs. We would than have something worth while, rather than the silly heat we have been getting.
I hope the government will seriously consider accepting a number of amendments. We could then proceed later in the summer on the actual legislation and do a lot more, with a lot more thought, than has been the case so far.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-83 that we are now discussing aims at protecting Canadian society against those who commit violent crimes and other
April 9, 1976

types of crimes. It deals specifically with firearms, electronic surveillance, parole and reformatories.
Since many members have already spoken on the subject, I will deal with only two aspects of the bill which I find extremely important since they concern particularly civil rights, the possession of firearms and electronic surveillance.
Bill C-83 provides that any citizen who wants to own a firearm should obtain a licence. Consequently, the owners of the 10 million or so guns or shotguns that exist throughout the country will be asked to give them to the police if they do not need them. Furthermore, firearm dealers and suppliers will have to keep accurate registers of all weapon sales. Moreover, any weapon owner or dealer could be charged and convicted if a murder is committed with a gun which belongs to him because he does not keep all his weapons in a safe place. Mr. Speaker, obviously, pressure groups of all types are protesting against the government proposal requiring that every gun owner have a licence.
I sincerely believe that this bill will not reduce the crime rate since most crimes committed in Quebec of other parts of the country are committed with weapons such as revolvers and machine guns which are now extremely difficult to obtain because of the rigidity of the present legislation.
Will the legislation proposed by this government give the anticipated results? To tell the truth, I am concerned about this. Indeed, we only have to note that the legislation of the State of Massachusetts in the United States, which is the strictest law ever applied in that country as concerns gun control and provides for an automatic sentence of imprisonment for one year for anyone who transports a weapon without a permit, has brought about very little changes in Boston during the first six months after its implementation. According to the statistics of the Boston police, the number of armed crimes such as murders, thefts, rapes and assaults committed during the first six months after the implementation of this legislation is about equal to the number registered for the same period in the previous year, before this strict legislation was implemented.
One thing is certain, Mr. Speaker, even the extremely severe penalties imposed by the law in the State of Massa-chussetts do not seem to have the desired dissuasive effect. Consider that in the case of revolvers, Canada established controls before the last World War, that these same controls became more severe during the sixties, to the extent that possession became so difficult as to be practically impossible, and yet these controls did not succeed in curbing the use of firearms for criminal purposes.
I sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government wants to establish at any price both strict and efficient controls on firearms. To do so, it must consider also some other appropriate sectors, for instance, the use of drugs which is steadily rising. In schools, CEGEPs and even in several universities, the use of drugs is widespread.
I am astonished to note that policemen seem to tolerate those kinds of things and to find them normal. The use of drugs is constantly increasing and requires huge sums of money. We know how much money drug users need to get them.
Measures Against Crime
To that can be added the startling conditions arising from the parole system in Canada. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, too many criminals are paroled without taking into account the possibility that they can become a threat to society. Giving further thought to the matter, I note that as the result of the disintegration of discipline and morality in an increasingly permissive society, we have lost all objectivity and every concept of values.
We must admit that problems raised about firearms and their violent use are very complex and often ambiguous. In addition, the relation existing between firearms and violence tends to conceal other much important related facts. Indeed, one only has to realize that the majority of offensive weapon owners want to use their weapons in an appropriate way. Now, if one looks at the statistics, one realizes that most of the time it is law-abiding sportsmen, honest and model citizens who deplore the use of firearms for criminal purposes.
So would it not be preferable to solve the problem giving reasonable consideration to their needs? Furthermore, it should never be forgotten that violence results from causes a lot deeper than the simple proliferation of firearms. Indeed, the gun is not dangerous by itself, the car is not dangerous by itself, nor is the gas that must be used. It all depends on the individual using it. It must be admitted that if firearms do make it easier to express violence they certainly do not provoke it. Also, if one makes a retrospective of events one realizes that all social perturbations in fact have their origin in the current economic system. To illustrate that one only has to think about someone coming out of jail. To survive, he must find a job. But unfortunately he will be refused employment because he has a criminal record that follows him everywhere.
Yet, he is a human being with physical needs who has to eat and dress, like everyone else. If he does not find work to meet those needs, he has but one alternative: go back to the vice for which he was condemned in the first place.
Undeniably, the proposal whereby bureaucrats would be empowered to determine who can have a firearm and who cannot is an alarming example of the philosophy according to which all that is not mandatory must be forbidden. May I also add that, if this bill becomes law, we can expect anything. And especially this: firearms will be restricted to an elite, and also those weapons will be registered by serial number.
That way, it will be easy for a government that suffers from delusions of grandeur to confiscate all firearms under the pretext of emergency measures, apprehended insurec-tion, and thus ensure the docility of the population.
In my modest opinion, the registration of firearms surely does not prevent criminals from getting them and, moreover, it will not save the lives of citizens who could be killed by people who never showed a propensity to crime in the past. I sincerely believe that the government is making a big mistake by proposing the adoption of this bill, because its purpose is to impose unnecessary measures to law-abiding citizens. There is for that matter no evidence at all that firearms control can effectively reduce the rate of crime, except in totalitarian states.
In addition, this bill will only create a number of annoyances for sportsmen and honest citizens in general. The

April 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
government would be better to prevent the selling of military surplus to the public, for I regard the fact of putting such arms on the market as criminal. I would like to add that the minimum age to buy firearms should be 18 or more.
In its present state, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-83 provides that a much greater number of justifications will be available to intercept private communications. An authorization of the courts would still be needed before intercepting communications and the period during which interceptions are authorized would be increased from 30 to 60 days. And it would no longer be necessary, after 90 days to notify a person whose communications have been intercepted. On top of allowing that more interceptions be conducted, Bill C-83 indicates that the police will even be allowed to use the private communication that has been intercepted as evidence in courts even if they have not been authorized by the judge.
Private communications are intercepted especially in the case of persons suspected of drug trafficking or gambling for these are areas in which the police is not always successful. But, even we can easily recognize that organized crime is now a real plague that we should fight with all possible means, do we really wish to allow the police to interfere in the private lives of honest people in such a generalized way in order to fight a war which they cannot win.
This measure seems inacceptable to me for it is unconceivable that in this free and democratic country, the research and the punishment of the guilty comes before the respect for the private lives of the honest citizens. For the moment, the law authorizes interception of private communications only in some very resricted cases and I hope that this will continue to be so.
Police officers are only human. They are not immune from error. We must therefore oppose any provision leaving too much discretion in such an area, because it is extremenly important not to infringe unnecessarily on the rights of a number of innocent people.
This does not mean wiretapping is not valuable. Any investigation technique, and especially undercover ones, may bring useful information. But I would not readily suggest it is the most precious police weapon, nor that the police cannot successfully conduct investigations without it. We must be realistic about it.
It must be added that intrusion has been made into the privacy of hundreds of thousands of individuals, with the aim of restricting freedom of speech and association, in the name of national security. Each year the government spends millions of dollars in that area, while neglecting more important services that could undoubtedly help eradicate factors leading to crime. And to what success, Mr. Speaker? A few drug peddlers, a handful of gamblers and bookeepers sentenced. Never are the major bosses arrested, for the simple reason that the big ones probably do not receive that many phone calls. Evidently, those not wishing to get caught do not use their telephones where they suspect they might be wiretapped. Frankly, there must be better ways of spending our few dollars.
Surely the aims of this legislation are commendable. But I cannot accept the fact that to fulfill them the government

found nothing better than restricting the civil liberties of honest Canadian citizens. In my view, further research should be done on the relationship between guns and violent crime, and the ways and means of fighting violence. Such are the comments I leave on Bill C-83.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-83 because it is so important to Canada and Canadians. As a lawyer and defence counsel I am concerned about the matters covered in the bill and the approach the minister is taking to handle them. I will not speak on all matters of interest to me at this time but will confine my remarks specifically to gun control, electronic surveillance, special crime inquiries, dangerous offenders, and custody and release. Time does not permit me to go into each in depth but only to make what I consider to be relevant points in order to have the best bill possible.
The first part of Bill C-83, dealing with gun controls, is an important part of the peace and security programme as a preventive approach to crime. We have all heard the criticisms of the proposed controls that have been levelled by hunters, sportsmen and other gun owners. These critics regard any form of gun control as an attempt to disarm them and deprive them of a means of protection and recreation. I think this is an unreasoned response to the measures that have been proposed by the government. There is a limited proposal to disarm: first, by providing for an absolute prohibition of weapons that have no legitimate uses in hunting or target shooting, and second, by restricting the possession of all firearms to people who can be relied upon to use them in a responsible manner and only for lawful purposes. A system of licensing firearm owners will not make it impossible for professional criminals to own and use guns, but the conscientious application of these controls will reduce the chances of dangerous weapons remaining in the hands of unreliable people.
A Statistics Canada study of firearms has revealed that 13 per cent of the homicides in 1974 were committed with hand-guns, which have been controlled for some fifty years. In the same year, approximately 30 per cent of the homicides were committed with long guns, which are not now subject to any means of control. The unrestricted availability of weapons obviously has a direct relationship to their use in criminal activities. It is important to bear in mind that, although "professional crime" is increasing in Canada, most homicides are still impetuous acts, committed in moments of extreme emotional stress. Controlled access to firearms could significantly reduce the number of these crimes. The "cooling-off" period built into the licensing system will forestall the train of events that so often ends in misfortune when there is uncontrolled access to weapons.
As the minister said in his remarks opening this debate, "gun ownership is not a right, but a privilege". People with previous convictions for firearm misuse, or with a history of mental instability, should not be granted this privilege. The onus must rest on the person seeking this privilege to show that he is capable of using firearms in a responsible way. To this end, I would like to see the licence application
April 9, 1976

include an undertaking that the applicant be responsible for the whereabouts of his firearms. He should also be required to show, at the time of the application, that he has the means to store firearms in a safe place where a child or other unauthorized person cannot have easy access to them. I would suggest that administratively the licensing be carried out locally in a similar manner to that already in effect for hunting licence applications in provinces. I would also suggest that some control be exercised with regard to the purchase of ammunition and/or explosives and/or the ingredients required for ammunition, so that authorities would know where any large quantity of ammunition may be found, such as the location of gun clubs and other similar organizations.
In imposing gun controls it is important to recognize that for many people firearms serve a necessary and legitimate purpose. This is a factor that has been admirably recognized by this bill. Being required to prove, at five year intervals, the ability to use and own firearms and to exercise responsibly will not inhibit any person with lawful intentions. I think this is the minimum price that should be required for the privilege of using weapons that have the potential for so much harm.
I fully support the proposed increases in maximum sentences for firearm misuse and for the use of firearms in the commission of other crimes. It will provide a more effective deterrent to the gratuitous use of weapons in criminal activities. However, I do not support the minimum sentence requirement in section 98(1), the proposed section that everyone who uses an offensive weapon, etc., whether or not he causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result thereof, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for not more than 14 years and not less than one year.
I would also suggest that the proposed section should be changed so that the individual could be charged under the section summarily or by indictment. The section refers only to proceeding by way of indictment, which seems rather harsh to me in all circumstances. In my view, the Crown attorney should be able to decide, on the facts available to him, whether to proceed summarily or by way of indictment. Minimum sentence do not provide any stronger deterrent to the commission of a crime, but they tie the hands of the judge responsible for sentencing. He alone is in the position to weigh the circumstances of the individual case and determine a suitable punishment. Appropriate sentencing is an integral part of the crime prevention process. For this reason, I think the sentencing judge should be limited only by maximum penalties.
I turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the question of electronic surveillance. In this section the amendments proposed in clauses 6 to 10 of the bill correct what I feel to be a serious error in the Protection of Privacy Act. The law enforcement authorities must be given sufficient freedom in their powers of investigation to uncover and prosecute the activities of organized criminals. The extension of the allowable period of surveillance is a belated recognition of the fact that crime prevention and detection is a lengthy and painstaking process. If the power to intercept communications is to be an effective one, then the time limit should be subject only to the requirement that the con-
Measures Against Crime
tinued necessity of the surveillance be shown at prescribed intervals.
The removal of the exclusionary evidence rule corrects another error in the orignal act that needlessly hampers police investigation. Admitting evidence derived from an illegal interception should not be viewed as an open invitation to unauthorized electronic surveillance. I think that more confidence in the integrity of our law enforcement authorities is warranted. Under the amended section, however, a technical invalidity in the judicial authorization would not cripple the entire investigation. Similarly, removing the requirement to notify the person being investigated will allow the investigation to be persistently developed without prematurely alerting the suspect.
These amendments have already been the object of a great deal of criticism, notably by the Civil Liberties Federation. In the Globe and Mail of March 2, the federation is quoted as calling this bill "the most regressive action taken by the government since the imposition of the War Measures Act", and predicting that "Canadians will lose a significant part of their hard won freedoms, while peace and security will still remain an elusive objective". Certainly in its efforts to control crime and reverse the trend of increasing violence, the government must not disregard the civil liberties of the individual. I think it is possible to establish a healthy balance between safeguarding the individual's rights and giving the police enough power to do their job effectively.
Specifically in the matter of electronic surveillance, this balance can best be maintained by requiring stringent judicial examination of every application for authorized surveillance. The grounds for authorizing an interception are set out in clause 7. I think the standing committee should undertake a careful study of this section in or to consider a more precise definition of the grounds for authorization, without, however, limiting their scope.
It is my understanding that when wiretapping and electronic bugging legislation was passed in the United States in 1968 it was actively utilized. In the first year of operation I understand that for 3,500 arrests where "bugs" were used, some 40,000 people were heard in some 500,000 conversations. When you consider the magnitude of such statistics, the whole question of bugging appears to be potentially dangerous to personal privacy.
I think the onus must remain on the Crown to demonstrate why it is necessary in the public interest. Surely it is useful for detection and follow-up concerning organized crime. However, it should only be used where other policing methods and techniques are not considered adequate or efficient. It has been shown in the United States, so I am advised, that there was more success in detecting crime using other conventional methods than when bugging was used. It seems to me that for bugging devices to be used, it must be shown that they are not only useful but indispensable under the circumstances of the case. The burden of showing the necessity of electronic surveillance rests, quite properly, on the official applying for authorization. If this requirement is rigorously applied, the public will not become subservient to the police, as the Civil Liberties Federation has charged. Subjecting each application for surveillance to close scrutiny by a member of the judiciary will do far more to protect the individual's rights than any
12680

Measures Against Crime
requirement that he be notified of the surveillance after the fact.
Another point of concern to me is that the proposed legislation is expanded to include all indictable offences. It includes not only serious crimes but also impaired driving, simple possession of marijuana and even theft of a newspaper. This does not seem to be consistent, to me, or according to the intent and spirit of the ligislation. Surely police authorities do not require electronic surveillance for all indictable offences. Another observation that could be made is that the notification requirement serves as a deterrent to needless bugging, in that the police should only bug where it is absolutely necessary.
The sections dealing with special crime inquiries to be established by the provinces provide a timely clarification of a constitutional issue. The effectiveness of these commissions of inquiry has already been demonstrated and a statutory definition of their powers is appropriate at this time. I have only a minor criticism of this part of the bill. If the commissions of inquiry established by the provinces are to exercise all the powers of a court, then I see no reason to withhold from them the power to cite for contempt. Requiring the citation to be brought by a judge of the superior court simply creates an unnecessary administrative step in the procedure. The commission is to be entrusted with the power to carry out a judicial inquiry, and with the protection of the legal rights of persons being investigated. I think it would be more consistent and expedient to allow the commission to issue contempt citations in connection with its other activities.
Unfortunately, my criticisms of the dangerous offender provisions of the bill are not so minor. It has been recognized for many years that the present sections dealing with preventive or indeterminate sentences have not been successful. The Ouimet report, in 1969, advocated an extensive revision of this part of the Criminal Code since it has been most frequently applied to essentially harmless people who have committed a series of minor property offences.
Similarly, studies of psychiatric services in penitentiaries, carried out by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), have revealed that dangerous sexual offenders have frequently been wrongly classified. The abolition of this concept is certainly a step in the right direction, as is the serious personal injury offence restriction that is proposed in Bill C-83. However, the existing law allows for an indeterminate sentence to be given only when a person has been previously convicted of an indictable offence on at least three separate occasions and who has been persistently leading a criminal life.
Under the amendments proposed, the requirement for three previous convictions would be replaced by "patterns of behaviour" indicating that the offender is not likely to be subject to restraint. The person could therefore be liable, on his first offence, to prolonged detention perhaps exceeding the maximum term for the crime for which he has been convicted; and the prolonged detention would be ordered on the basis of past behaviour which has not necessarily involved the contravention of any law.
We are dealing here with a departure from the traditional ambit of the criminal law, which punishes or detains

only on the basis of proven infringements of clearly defined rules. I think this departure is a potentially dangerous one, requiring scrupulous examination.
The classification of certain offenders on the basis of their potential for dangerous behaviour would be made on the strength of evidence of psychiatrists, criminologists or psychologists. This approach seems to presuppose that practitioners in these disciplines can assess an individual's potential for violent behaviour according to a set of technical and objective criteria. Unfortunately, the behavioural sciences have not reached this stage of accuracy. An error, on the side of "caution", in the original assessment of the offender's potential for violence can create a serious injustice; and the error could be repeated, and the injustice compounded, during the periodic reviews that have been provided for. There is also the possibility that a "dangerous offender" could be released within three years, and, regardless of the accuracy of the assessment of his potential for violence, would thereby serve a much shorter sentence than would have been imposed if he had not been deemed a dangerous offender.
C. S. Lewis, writing in "1953 Res Judicatae," warned of the dangers of the "humanitarian theory of punishment", which
removes sentences from the hands of jurists whom the public conscience is entitled to criticize and places them in the hands of technical experts whose special sciences do not even employ such categories as rights or injustice ... the first result of the Humanitarian theory is, therefore, to substitute for a definite sentence (reflecting to some extent the community's moral judgment on the degree of ill-dessert involved) an indefinite sentence terminable only by the word of those experts ...
My objections to the dangerous offender sections should not be construed as an objection to the preventive approach to crime, or to the protection of society from known criminals. But the same result can be achieved by the traditional sentencing methods, without incurring the risks of error and injustice.
The past behaviour of a convicted offender can certainly be used in the judge's determination of the appropriate sentence to be handed down. The repeal of statutory remission of sentence, proposed in this bill, would ensure that any person who demonstrated "unrestrained violent tendencies" would not be released before the sentence was actually served.
The last point I wish to raise has to do with custody and release. The proposed changes to the Parole Act and the laws governing the correctional institutions will provide a much needed improvement in the release of convicted offenders. The increase in the number of National Parole Board members will, as the minister has stated, permit a more thorough review of individual cases for parole. The inclusion of members of the community on the board reflects the legitimate interests of local concerns in the release of inmates. I would like to see this approach carried further in the amendments, and have some assurance that the parole decision will be based, at least in part, on the recommendations of people who are in daily contact with the prisoner, since it is these people who are in daily contact with the prisoner, and since it is these people who are in the best position to assess the individual's chances for a successful return to society.
April 9, 1976

I have spoken at some length on some of the areas of concern in this bill. There are many other aspects of the bill that should be further considered as well. I would hope that the bill could be moved quickly to the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs so that each issue raised could be considered in depth and so that Canadians who are interested will be able to take part in the deliberations. I would also hope that the minister has some amendments to make in view of the representations that he has received that he would make them known at the earliest possible time, and certainly as soon as the bill goes to committee.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, speaking today on Bill C-83, the peace and security bill, I should first of all like to say that there are many people in Canada who believe this bill relates to capital punishment. This is not their fault. Rather it is the fault of the government which has done a very poor job in explaining that we have two bills before us, one being the peace and security bill and the other bill being on capital punishment.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) spend much time and money advertising on television and radio in an attempt to convince the people of Canada to change their opinions on capital punishment rather than on properly explaining the issues. They have done much to confuse it. Bill C-83 on peace and security contains some 73 pages, half of which are on gun control. The remainder deals with wiretapping, special crime inquiries, custody and release of inmates, crime, and crime prevention measures. These are considered to be more of the housekeeping type of amendments to acts that have already been passed by the House of Commons.
There can be no doubt that this bill should be divided in two, that is, the gun control section split from the remainder of the bill and introduced as a separate bill. It is for this reason that our party proposed a motion asking that the bill not be read a second time, but that it be sent to committee to have the gun control section severed from the rest. I believe this action should certainly be taken and I only hope that our motion will be called before it is sent to the Standing Committee for Study following second reading.
As this comprehensive gun control bill is the first ever to be put before the people of Canada, there is great concern shown by the people over this bill, and they believe that we should have an opportunity to study it, by itself, in committee. There is no doubt that it needs a lot of clarification and much discussion in committee. It does very little to control the criminal elements. In its present form it could be the cause of many innocent people getting criminal records.
Hunters and sportsmen could probably live with such a bill if they could get a licence to own a gun. They are already licensed to hunt, and in many cases they believe that this same licence would be the one that would entitle them to own a gun. But this really is not the case as this bill clearly spells out.
What does legal responsibility in the act really mean? What is safe storage? Is safe storage a person's home, provided it is locked, or does the government really mean
Measures Against Crime
that guns have to be kept in a separate locked gun closet? A locked home is often broken into. People who break into a home can also very easily break into the gun closet. Does it mean carrying it in a locked car or locked truck? Surely if one is to transport guns or firearms either to or from the gun shooting clubs or for hunting, this must be done by car or truck. Criminals have no difficulty in breaking into locked cars or trucks.
Getting back to the legal responsibility, if a gun is stolen, how can it be proven whose gun it is? Certainly this legal responsibility can and will only apply to the very innocent. Section 105 (2), "seizure without warrant", alone would start a round of court cases involving people who are innocent of wrong-doing because peace officers would then be allowed to enter homes without search warrants and seize firearms which they feel are out of place. This is often the case when we pass a law such as this without really looking at and studying the ramifications.
The seizure of weapons by police, when the safety of a person is in danger, is probably not too bad or too hard to live with, providing the police do not use this sort of thing indiscriminately. I can think of many times when this should have happened, but because it couldn't the police were unable to perform their duties properly. I would also hope, if a section such as this were passed, it would not allow the police to show their muscle when it was not really necessary.
We already have laws about restricted and prohibited firearms. However, the registration of these is being tightened in this bill. The bill clearly says that the only way that you can have such a restricted firearm, is when there is need for protection of life, lawful occupation, target shooting, or bona fide collecting. This proposed section also needs some clarification so that people are assured that their rights will be protected.
The target shooters and the bona fide collectors are the ones about whom we are most concerned. In many cases the bona fide collector can prove that he has made the gun inoperative by removing the firing pin or other dangerous parts of the gun, and therefore he feels that he should not be discriminated against. As hunting has become more and more limited in the more populated areas in Canada today, target or trap shooting is a very popular form of diversion for the sportsmen. They are therefore able to use their guns in the same manner as they did when they were actually hunting, and this allows them to be participants in sports rather than just being spectators. The fact must be recognized that these people cannot and should not be restricted in this kind of relaxation which they enjoy.
Let us now deal with the section on licensing. This is the section about which, I believe, most people in Canada, certainly those who want to have guns for hunting, are most concerned. This provision says that anyone who wishes to possess guns or firearms must have a licence. To obtain this licence they must have two designated guarantors who are responsible people in the community.
Just who will designate these responsible people? The government in power will, of course. Will they be political appointees? Will they be paid employees? Certainly if they will be paid political employees there will be no problem in
21804-41(4

Measures Against Crime
getting them. There are always people standing around looking for these types of positions. However, one must ask what their responsibilities will really be. Will they have any responsibilities apart from guaranteeing that someone should have a licence? If they do, then I do not think there will be many people willing to take on this kind of task.
At any rate in many of the small communities in Canada I do not really believe there will be too many people who will want to take on this kind of chore without having or accepting some other responsibility, and therefore I do not believe it will be very easy to convince people to accept the position of a guarantor for an applicant for a licence to obtain a gun. These guarantors will not be concerned so much about the multitude of people whom they guarantee for licences but rather about the few about whom they are not certain whether they should or should not have a gun.
What about the innocent-type looking person who comes to them for a licence and then later shows that he is not responsible enough to own a gun? How does one determine mental stability? Will someone who has had mental problems at some time or other, especially in his childhood, be forever considered mentally unstable? How do you know that a person has never had any medication for mental instability? In many cases parents have sought help for what they thought were their disturbed children. Are these children to be charged with mental instability for the rest of their lives? For the parents who did not seek help there really is no record, so they do not have to answer for these children. Persons who sought and received help could now have much better mental stability, but now they have a record which will follow them and therefore they might be discriminated against.
A great number of people are now concerned about the cost of the fee for the licence. Just how much bureaucracy will there be in order to licence all these people? This concern is real because under this legislation the cost of the licence will be relative to the operational costs of the bureaucracy. This is not very easy in these times of big governments and Parkinson's law. So this has become a very big issue. Has the government made any study to determine what the cost will be? How will it explain it to people if the cost is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 per licence? I understand that the cost of a licence in New York is around $100.
What about people who are moving around Canada? They can get a licence for five years but they must be known for two years in the community in which they reside by the guarantors who have been designated. We all know that workers travel around in different parts of Canada. The recently released report of the Economic Council of Canada shows this very clearly. How can a person have his licence renewed if he is not known in the community?
Another group of people about whom we are concerned are the American hunters coming to Canada. How will they get a licence? This question is being asked by many guides across Canada who have set up a hunting business for American hunters. In general these are not small businesses but big businesses, and answers to these questions must be forthcoming. Will the treatment accorded hunters from abroad differ from that accorded to our own? This matter should be clarified.

I should like to take this opportunity to read into the record parts of two excellent letters which I have received from my constituents. The first comes from Grand Forks, British Columbia. It reads:
I have been able to exercise my vote for well over 20 years and other than that do not become deeply involved in politics. Over the years, however, many policies, regulations, restrictions, etc. that the government has brought about have been, in my opinion, ridiculous-
However, the purpose of my letter is to express my views on the upcoming firearms regulations. I recently had the opportunity to thumb through the 30 some odd page proposal, some of which makes sense, some is tolerable. The majority, however, is once again, I feel, ridiculous.
I do not wish to pick at individual items as this would involve a 40 page summary, so will take a general approach.
I own some firearms, I thoroughly enjoy the outdoors in every respect and normally get a little hunting in each fall. However, I am not a gun collector nor a hand load buff.
I am familiar enough with firearms and laws to be certain that no one would purchase a gun, register it, try and obtain a carrying permit, then go and commit a crime. Anyone who is capable of bank robbery, murder or whatever, will have no reservation about stealing the gun. If offensive weapons are to be registered then one may list the following, knives of all kinds with blades over three inches, finger nail files, hammers, axes, clubs baseball bats, golf clubs, broken bottles, fists, wrenches, tire irons, etc., etc., etc. The above items are frequently used as a tool to create bodily harm or used in a threat.
The papers and newscasts are constantly reporting people killed in car accidents, plane crashes, drownings, house fires and the like. Everyone that is injured or killed certainly has not been shot-so why pick on guns? Alcohol and drugs cripple, mentally distort, and generate more crimes, so why not attack the source rather than pick on guns? Not long ago some teenage children in an institution held officials captive with broken glass, as a weapon. Just prior to that, inmates in a prison held guards captive at knife point. No guns were involved in these and numerous other cases-
It is our tax dollars that apprehend and convict these people then go on to support all their demands. This adds up to many thousands of dollars per prisoner per year, year after year, after year.
Not long ago a habitual drug user was apprehended with several thousand dollars worth of hard drugs in his possession, for the purpose of trafficking. The volume of drugs in his possession was enough to bend several people out of shape for the rest of their lives. Many weeks and a terrific amount of money, tax money, was spent to give this person a fair trial. I understand he was fined $350 and turned loose to pick up where he left off on the streets.
A great deal of time and money has been spent in the past in legislating laws and regulations. A good many of these are directed at gun control. This is good. I am certainly in favour of laws and regulations that will afford a safe society for my family and I to survive in, but let's take a long hard look at what we have and where the real problems are rather than point a finger at another surface object which generates more legislation, more laws, more tax dollars spent, restricts the "Joe Blow" type and if anything, gives the criminal more protection.
In review I am suggesting that... Adequate laws relating to firearms control have been made-so "enforce them" ... Deal with the crime and criminals in the same fashion that they deal with society-"harshly".
Another letter comes from a lady in Penticton, B.C.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Perhaps the Chair should raise the point, since the hon. member has quoted quite extensively from a letter which was sent to him, that the usual practice in this House in the past under these circumstances has been that the writer of the communication should be identified.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I have the letter here, and I would be only too pleased to send it up and have it-
April 9, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: These letters should be identified by hon. members when they are making their speeches.


George H. Whittaker: The author of this letter is Mr. Hay Johnson of Grand Forks, British Columbia.
There is another letter from a lady in Penticton, and it reads as follows:
It was interesting to hear the result of your questionnaire, regarding capital punishment and gun control laws. I can understand your confusion . . .


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George H. Whittaker: I hear a lot of noise from people on the other side, and because I receive more mail from my constituents than these few which point out in uncertain terms the faults in this legislation, they are becoming very thin skinned. They do not want to hear them. They do not want to hear this type of thing because they are so thin skinned. They cannot take it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George H. Whittaker: The reason I quote from these letters is that they are so well written.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to clarify that I read my mail in my office. I get as much mail as the hon. member does, but I do not read it in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: That could very well be a point for debate, but I do not think it is a point of order. The hon. member was good enough to comply with a suggestion made by the Chair with regard to a point he was making in debate, and during most of the morning and afternoon all speakers have been listened to with extraordinary silence.


George H. Whittaker: I am sorry that the whip of the official opposition is so thin skinned.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I am not the whip of the official opposition.


An hon. Member:: You will be.


George H. Whittaker: The hon. member will be before too long. He does not have as loud a voice as the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs. I only heard the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs. I have great difficulty hearing the voice of the government whip.
Another letter comes from a lady in Penticton, B.C., and reads as follows:
It was interesting to hear the result of your questionnaire, regarding capital punishment and gun control laws. I can understand your confusion when many pro-capital punishment are against gun control measures. As you will note, the fish and game enthusiasts are feeling threatened on this issue and react as they usually do to anything that interferes with their "rights". Perhaps, the issue has been clouded by the knowledge that the judiciary have not made full use of their prerogative to pass appropriate sentences to those convicted of violent crimes.
Measures Against Crime
On reading through the Criminal Code of Canada, it is obvious that the maximum sentences available are probably adequate. In recent years it has become increasingly apparent, to those interested enough to follow the course of a trial to its outcome, that few indeed are judges that give anything but sentences that can only be called minimal (i.e. Steven Scott, convicted of manslaughter (plea bargain) originally charged with murder of Mrs. Mae Arpe, last fall in Penticton, sentenced in January, Kamloops Supreme Court, to five years. A brutal killing, tried in camera so that certain aspects would not be made public. Scott elected for trial by the judge-one small paragraph in Vancouver Sun and Penticton Herald, in which the judge is quoted as having told Scott that his actions were despicable and he hopes he gets psychiatric help (for his perversions)-along with a sentence for 5 years-(5 years means, 40 months maximum and 18 months-If Mr. Scott plays the game in the prison)-astonishing!
Perhaps the best example, or worst, is the sentence to the man in Saskatchewan, who killed four children last year-each murder conviction allowed a sentence of life imprisonment. The judge passed sent-nece appropriately until he said "concurrent"-if he never intended this dangerous person to be free-whatever happened to the term "consecutive"?
I realize the judiciary operates independently from government and this is right and good. As it stands they answer to absolutely no one for their action within the court. From time to time we are told that sentencing reflects the will of the people in any given age-"the mores of the times"-I don't think so at this time in the 20th century.
It is, therefore, the responsibility of government to ensure protection for the public by making certain that minimum sentences are a fact in the Criminal Code too. All the messing around with increasing maximum sentences comes to naught if the judiciary does not make use of these changes.
In these days of plea bargaining, easy bail availability, elopements from mental hospital of persons held under "order-in-council", prison escapes and hostage taking, is it any wonder that the public has begun to question the courts? It seems that sentencing for white collar crimes, involving money, draw more punitive measures than do violent crimes now.
In closing, I must add that gun control measures must come no matter what the macho types amoung us feel. No matter that professional criminals will always have their sources, some measures are in order that some guns will be surrendered (to be destroyed) by those who do not want their responsibility-many will keep the guns they have under a more safe manner. Guns will only be sold under more stringent conditions. This has to be a benefit to the people.
An excerpt from another letter I received from one of my constituents says:
It is my firm belief that the eventual prohibition of all firearms is the aim of this government and when that comes, we will be living in a police state. An omnibus bill is not the way to pass legislation that will affect millions of people, but it is the only way an arrogant or irresponsible government can hope to get unpopular laws passed.
I have just quoted from only three of the many letters I have received from my constituents, but I think they aptly point out what concerns the people in my riding. Many people believe that this bill is designed to confuse and divide the people of Canada, and as we know this government for its great divide and conquer ways I think they are quite right in their concerns. Yes, this bill could be just a tip of the iceberg; it could lead to eventual prohibition of firearms. People who think this way just cannot be ignored. Some of them have seen this in the countries from which they emmigrated. Many are aware of the rights which have been taken away from the people over the years, and they see that this is just another one of these actions.
My involvement with guns has been of long duration-most of my life and it has also been very complete. I doubt if there are very many members in this house who have used guns more than I have, starting back in the late

April 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
twenties. I know guns; I know what they can do. I have seen them used with great discretion, and I have even seen them misused, mainly by people who are inexperienced and have not been trained in their use. But just tell me of anything which can be abused in Canada and which has not been abused, for instance, the automobile, alcohol, drugs, television, and the writer's pen. The easy targets will be those who are underprivileged and unfamiliar with the law.


An hon. Member:: There is a lot of difference between the pen and the gun.


George H. Whittaker: I notice that the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) interjects that there is a lot of difference between the pen and the gun, but let me point out that there have been many pens loaded with poison.


Mrs. Holt:: They don't blow off a head and they don't knock out hearts.


George H. Whittaker: I think the hon. member should go and write another book like "Terror in the Name of God".


Simma Holt: Maybe you would learn something. Maybe I will write on guns and the dangers of them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Let him go on reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor and there should not be half a dozen other debates taking place on his time.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, the easy targets will be those who are underprivileged and unfamiliar with the law. I see the prospect of harassment levelled against innocent people; people who are caught in the web of this law on legal technicalities because of the difficulty they find in adjusting and altering their sports and cultural habits in line with the imposition of this law, which is based on sheer lunacy. This is a form of innocent guilt which is unjust, unnecessary, and inexpedient.
There are areas where steps could legitimately be taken with respect to the use of firearms; for example, the development and administration of an effective safety program, the development of high standards of proficiency amongst sportsmen and hunters. In these respects legitimate sportsmen's organizations throughout the country have never been recognized. Their recommendations have never been acknowledge. They have not been consulted or requested to provide input into the legislation we are considering.
Surely an effective safety program could be worked out jointly between the federal government and the provinces, in consultation with gun clubs, hunters' groups, and fish and game associations. If this legislation is to command the co-operation and support it will need in order to make it work, the minister and the government will have to go to these people and work with them. There are better ways of getting to the core of the criminal problem than using a

sledge hammer on the innocent law-abiding citizens of this country. Surely, the hunters, target shooters, and gun collectors are not criminals.
If we dealt with our killers and criminals in a firm, harsh way, it would be the first positive step in stemming the tide of rising murder and violence. The law dealing with those who have threatened violence, or use violence in a criminal act, requires tightening up and firmer enforcement. To that extent I welcome the provisions of this bill.
The legitimate gun owner in this particular case should not be the scapegoat. This bill will do very little to deter the criminal. The section dealing with gun control was the government's response to the emotion and hysteria of an already overloaded and frustrated society. It has addressed itself to that element rather than engaging in a penetrating examination of the root causes of the chronic problem, that of violence in this country.
While there is a general disposition on the part of the public to demand some tightening up in the establishment of control and safety standards, in respect of this bill and to the extent it meets these objectives I must say categorically that I find this piece of legislation exceedingly harsh and very offensive. It seems to me that quite a public relations job is being done here.
The government has utilized a kid glove policy in dealing with the criminal element of this country and it now attempts to take it out on the legitimate gun owner. It has responded to the emotions of hysteria in relation to some dramatic episodes that have taken place in the last year or so. These episodes, involving the use of guns, may have involved the use of some other weapon, such as a bomb. My view is that if a person is bound to kill, or has an absolute desire to kill, he will kill in one way or another, whether it be with a gun, bomb, sledge hammer, knife, or the fist.
This is the core of the problem, and that is the problem to which this bill fails to address itself. I repeat that what is needed is stricter enforcement of existing laws and less coddling of criminals. Stricter gun laws will not cut crime, but proper enforcement of the existing laws will.
The Minister of Justice has now used closure to stop the debate on this bill. He said, in a radio broadcast the other day, that the reason for this was that he wanted to get the bill to committee because of all the mail he has had from across Canada. He now understands that the bill was poorly written, needs much discussion in committee, and has to have many amendments.
In my opinion the minister should be severely censored for bringing a bill to the House of Commons which he now realizes was very poorly written. He also realizes there is going to be a great wave of opinion across Canada against such a bill. He also does not like the speeches that are being made by the opposition against this bill, while knowing full well that his own members cannot stand up or do not stand up and say what their constituents are saying to them about the bill.
Surely this is a poor way to run a government when it has to pull this type of closure on the opposition so that they cannot continue to inform the people of Canada about this bill. Surely, this must be one time they must be informed, knowing that we have not had this form of gun
April 9, 1976

control legislation brought before us in the history of Canada.
We have legislation concerning guns that will and should control the criminal if it is properly used. Now we see this government of ours bringing in this kind of legislation, wanting it to have as little discussion as possible, so that the people of Canada cannot understand what is really going on. The government wants to get it into committee, of course, because when it is being discussed in committee there is no record for the people of Canada to follow.
It appears to me that the government wants to get it into committee to try to take the heat off, and then maybe it can get some more of its high-pressured advertising going to try to convince the people of Canada that it is right. But I do not think it is going to be able to do so in this case. I believe the people have caught on to the tactics of this government.
At one time, even I was hoping that the government was going to be serious in its presentation of Bill C-83, the peace and security bill, that it would be getting tougher with law and order. But, just at that moment, we had the judges' affair. We found that cabinet ministers were calling judges about court cases. At that same moment we were able to know and understand that the government was not serious. If it had been serious, the Prime Minister would not have hesitated to call a public inquiry into the judges' affair. This would really have demonstrated to the people of Canada that there was some seriousness, but he did not, and so they in turn are not going to take him very seriously.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-83 and Bill C-84 are companion pieces of legislation. Their one basic purpose is an attempt to achieve a society with less violence. One reason I feel very strongly about Bill C-84, and I will just mention this before dealing with C-83, is that to achieve a society with less violence we cannot use violent means. It is for this reason I am an abolitionist. This is not for me a matter of conscience or morality; it is just a fact that you cannot have less violence by using conscious violent means. Bill C-83 is an attempt to reduce violence in our society.
For a few minutes I should like to discuss this general area of violence and the reason for the increase in the use of violence in our society. Let me refer to some statistics.
In 1970 the total number of offences against the Criminal Code committed in Canada was 1.1 million. In the four years from then to 1974 this grew to 1.45 million, or about one criminal offence for every 17 persons in Canada. Of course, that is an incorrect way of phrasing it because some people committed more than one offence. There was an increase in crime in that period of 31.8 per cent. In the same period, violent crimes such as rape, murder and armed robbery, increased by 23.5 per cent. As a percentage of the total amount of crime, violent crimes decreased from 9.2 per cent to 8.7 per cent. However, that does not mean we do not have a problem.
Measures Against Crime
I wish to present another set of figures comparing crime in this country with that of the United States. In the period between 1970 and 1974 violent crime increased by 23.5 per cent in Canada and 24 per cent in the United States. The significant figure is that in 1974, there were 2.6 violent crimes for every 100,000 population in Canada as opposed to 9.7 violent crimes for every 100,000 population in the United States, about four times as much. I state those figures because they are significant when dealing with the whole area of violence which is basically what is dealt with in this bill.
There are many reasons why violent crime is on the increase. First and foremost is the general insecurity of our times. We live in a very unique time. I do not think there is any period in history that can compare with the present time. Things move very rapidly. We have inflation, resource shortages and a whole series of problems. People feel insecure. They live under severe pressure. Change occurs at a very rapid rate.
There is a basic element of conflict in the way we view life in our society. This conflict shows itself in many ways. One is in the whole area of violence. Another is in the increased use of drugs. If one were to analyse these statistics, 23 or 24 per cent over that period of time in Canada, and the same in the United States, one would see that drugs were very much an element in violent crime. However, I see drugs more as a result of the conflict of our times and the difficulties of the period we live in rather than they themselves being the basic problem, although they do present an additional set of problems. The basic problem is insecurity and the times in which we live.
There is another factor of which we must be cognizant, that is the accent in the media, television in particular, on violence. When we compare the figure of 9.7 per 100,000 in the United States as opposed to 2.6 in Canada for violent crimes, we can see that some of this violence flows over through the media, television in particular, into Canadian society from the United States. Young people watch thousands of shootings and killings on television during their formative years. That is another factor that has to be looked at; it is not dealt with in this bill, but it is something we have to think about.
I would like to deal with the educational system. I spent 20 years in it, 17 years as principal of a high school. I am very concerned about something that is happening in our schools which I believe it is contributing to a violent type of society.
I am sure hon. members recall the tragedy in Brampton last spring when one student shot two people and tried to kill a third. A similar incident occurred in an Ottawa high school last fall. We should not look at those two crimes as isolated incidents because there are other forms of violence which do not show up in the courts. For example, the suicide rate in our high schools is very high.
I do not like to oversimplify things, but there is something they are doing in our schools that I consider very dangerous. Our schools have grown large. We have taken the attitude that in a school with an enrolment of 1,800, we can offer more courses and this is good. We have computerized our school system. We have taken individual students

April 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
and put them into a timetable straightjacket by means of a computer. This has been done very thoughtlessly.
We have set up what is known as a scattered timetable. In the first period a student may attend an English class with 30 other students. The next period may be mathematics and there may only be two students from the first group. The next could be a French period with no one from the first group. What we have done is take that student away from any possibility of being part of an established group. We have taken him or her away from interacting socially and learning how to adjust to a group.
When I, and I am sure most other members, went to school, we belonged to a home form class. We moved with that class. We were part of that group. The teachers knew the students in that home form class. In the Brampton incident, two teachers were looking for that student on the same day. I am sure both teachers did not know they both taught that particular student.
There is a real problem of identification in the schools because of the scattered timetable. I am perhaps spending more time on this than I should, but it is something I know about, and it concerns me because I think we are creating a very dangerous precedent in our society.
Young people do not learn how to become part of a peer group when they are scattered. When they leave school, and they leave early, partly because they did not become part of a group within the school, they do not know how to adjust within a society. They are in conflict with society. They have not learned the social intercourse which is necessary. We are creating an element in our social policy which will inevitably lead to more violence.
I now wish to deal briefly with the bill. While I have some difficulty with it, I cannot understand the strong opposition to the bill because there are elements of it that are very good. When discussing this bill, the opposition glosses over certain things. There are some basic purposes we have to look at.
This bill attempts to prevent criminals and psychopaths from getting hold of guns. That is not an easy proposition. The bill is perhaps most imperfect in this attempt, but it is attempting to do that.
I do not think that the matter of registering the owner of the gun in the way set out in the bill will be very effective. There are some real difficulties in this area. I do not like the idea of two guarantors. In the many years that I signed passports, all I did when signing was to say that I had known that person, usually a student, for two years. I did not have to say that I approved of that person or that I thought that person was good, bad or indifferent. I just had to say that for two years I had known the person whose name was on the passport.
I think as a guarantor I would not have objected when asked whether a person was or was not a good person, if I had to make some kind of valuation, moral or otherwise, of that person. So I think this is something we have to look at somewhat differently. Yes, I think we should licence the gun owner but in some other way, because, don't forget, the purpose is to prevent criminals and psychopaths from owning guns. But in some way we should be able to

register an individual by merely having him apply for a licence and have the licence looked at in some way or other by the police or other authorities, to ensure that he isn't a known criminal or, even more important, that he is not a dangerous psychopath, a person who could use a gun for the purpose we are talking about, that is, for a violent purpose. I think this might be a better approach. That same registration card could then be used to buy ammunition, to buy another gun, and so on.
The second purpose of the legislation has to do with more care in the use of guns. One of the things which has been absent from this debate as far as the opposition is concerned is statistics of the deaths incurred from firearms. In the year 1974, the last year for which I have figures, some 1,500 people in this country dies as a result of the use of firearms. Only 269 were the result of homicides and, as I understand it, close to two thirds of those were homicides caused by people known to the person who committed the murder, So really we are dealing with the use of guns within families. Over a thousand of the deaths caused by the use of guns were by suicide. We are dealing with the use of guns by persons who are not basically criminals.
The person who commits suicide is not a criminal. The person who gets drunk and so on and gets into a fight and kills someone is basically not a criminal when he starts. This is the dangerous use of guns of about which we must be concerned. It represents more than four fifths of all the deaths by firearms. I do not know how we can escape those figures. To me they are extremely important. Whether the bill effectively deals with this aspect I am not certain. I think there may be other things we can do. But to say that we are restricting the law-abiding citizen and ignoring the criminal is to ignore the statistics completely.
I think there are some important things in this bill. For instance, it should be stressed that it is a criminal offence to leave a loaded gun in a home or to leave a gun on the seat of a car. I think that what has to be done in the bill is to specify these things, put them down and say what is a criminal offence in this respect. I hope amendments will be made in this direction.
Another point I should like to make is this: the bill is an attempt to penalize criminals. I think we have all accepted the fact that there is a portion in the bill which would make it automatic that when a gun is used in the commission of a crime the person who uses it should get a sentence in addition to the sentence going with the crime. I think one year is too light. I would make it two years to 14 years rather than one year to 14 years.
Another important feature of the bill is that it does allow the police to remove firearms when there is a very definite sense of danger, when there is danger that can come from the use of those firearms. I think the police must be able to remove those weaspons. When an individual has violent habits, when an individual is drinking, when, for instance in the case of a quarrel between husband and wife the wife feels she is going to be killed with a gun, it is important that the police be able to remove that gun.
1 have one other point. I find it difficult to understand the person who says, "If a gun is not available some other weapon would be used.'' I know of one incident and, I know one individual involved rather well. A person drink-

ing, cut up another person with a knife. The person who was cut up recovered. The person who did the crime was a Korean war veteran, a world war two veteran, an expert in the use of arms. He certainly would have killed that person in that act if a gun had been available. So I think it is important to realize that the gun is an important thing, more lethal then a knife, to be kept under control and I believe the bill does something in this direction.
I will support the measure in principle on second reading. I will insist, however, that there are some amendments which must be made which will strengthen the bill, as well as amendments which will also make it more reasonable, that will not condemn the legitimate hunters and members of gun clubs and people in similar groups who I believe are very, very careful about how they use guns. These are groups which will not permit members to misuse guns; they know that if guns are misused on a shoot somebody is going to be killed. They spend a lot of time and energy training people in gun safety. I hope that when the bill finally goes to committee the advice of the gun groups will be sought and seriously considered especially when we are discussing gun safety.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being four o'clock, pursuant to the order made earlier this day the House will now revert to Routine Proceedings, specifically, statements by ministers, for the purpose of hearing a statement by the Prime Minister.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for allowing me to make a statement at this rather unusual hour. It had been agreed that I would table those papers today because of some events that concern all parties in the House. It was not possible for me to do so at noon, so I think I had to do it before the weekend.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table letters I sent recently to the premiers of the provinces which set forth the essentials of discussions that have been going on during the past year. They are discussions to see if we might find our way out of a constitutional impasse that has frustrated governments of all political persuasions, both federal and provincial, for nearly 50 years. That impasse is the problem of bringing to an end our unique and unenviable distinction as a country of having to go to the Parliament of another country if we want to amend some fundamental parts of our constitution.

I do not intend to go into this problem in any detail. The former leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), raised the matter in the Debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne on October 2, 1974. He said he did not think it was too much to ask
The Canadian Constitution
that there be agreement "at least on an amendment formula, during the life of this parliament". I agreed with that view. I hope my agreement is shared by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). It seemed to be shared by virtually all hon. members judging from reactions at that time.
In April, 1975, I had a meeting with the premiers of the provinces to discuss the pricing of oil and gas and related issues. I used the occasion to test whether there might be hope of getting the kind of limited agreement to which the hon. member for Halifax had referred-agreement on an amendment formula on the basis of which we could bring complete control of our constitution into Canadian hands. The premiers agreed that it would be worth trying and I asked the Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations to visit each of them to explore the possibility further. The letters I am tabling report the results of those discussions.
I think there has been some misunderstanding about the way the government, or I personally, approach this matter. Clearly "patriation" or the achievement of a means of amending our constitution are not "urgent" in the sense that the control of inflation or decisions with regard to energy prices are urgent. Nor are they "priorities" in the same sense as many other priorities the government has established for the determination of new policies or programs. But there are "priorities" of a less tangible kind that are important when human societies are buffeted by the uncertainties and the attacks on confidence that we find in the world of today. Affirmations of national will and indications of collective determination to renew and strengthen faith in structures and in values that unite people are symbolic, but they are important.
Such a symbolic affirmation occurred, I think, when the Parliament of Canada adopted our national flag. Does anyone doubt it has strengthened our sense of being "Canadian" or of being united for important purposes? A similar symbolic affirmation could occur if we were seen to attest our faith in our form of government by ending a defect that has flawed it for decades. This is not, perhaps, the kind of thing that should claim a large part of the time of parliament when other things might press. But I, as Prime Minister, make no apology for saying that it is the kind of thing that we should try to do. We should not be seen constantly to be failing as a people in a matter that relates to the central structure of our national fabric. In short, it is well worth some attention from this parliament to conclude this long outstanding piece of national business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is for these reasons that I have raised the possibility that Parliament might seek to have "patriation" accomplished without provincial consent if that consent seems impossible to achieve. Clearly it would be a last resort and clearly it should not be on a basis that could affect the distribution of powers or the position of the provinces. It must not provide any means by which Parliament could act unilaterally in future in any area where it cannot do so today since that would erode the essence of our federal system. In my letters I explore three ways
12688

April 9, 1976
The Canadian Constitution
Parliament might move for "patriation" without such consequences. I raise these not to recommend them, but rather to explore how we might bring to an end the apparently perpetual impasse. Neither the federal government nor Parliament should accept the proposition that they can do nothing whatever about a matter of such importance to us as a country.
Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table in both official languages letters that I sent on March 31, 1976 to the premiers of all provinces, together with a "Form for a Proclamation of the Governor General" which those letters covered.
Mr. Speaker, I am also tabling another letter dated April 19, 1975. It had been written following the meeting with the premiers I mentioned earlier. I did not ask all premiers permission to table the letter that I wrote to them. However, since the premier of the province of Quebec recently raised the possibility that I table it, I undertook to do so knowing no one would likely object.
Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I would also suggest that those letters be part of the debates.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of above documents, see appendix.]


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to express to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the House the appreciation of all members on this side of the House for the courtesy in agreeing to delay the tabling of this document and the remarks preceding the tabling until this hour, since some of us had to be absent earlier in order to be present at the funeral services for the late Senator Grattan O'Leary. I am pleased, as are my colleagues, that the letters have now been tabled and will be part of the public record. Certainly I approve of the Prime Minister's suggestion that they be appended to today's Hansard; I think that will be generally helpful.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I hope there is no need for the Prime Minister to ask whether I intend to be cooperative or constructive about achieving an amending formula and, indeed, about achieving patriation of the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I hope we can achieve both of these goals-and they are not necessarily the same goals-within the life of this parliament. I should say that in the text of a speech which I gave last Friday in my native province, in the presence of the premier of that province-and I might say in passing that it was a speech in which I felt able to keep my shirt buttoned and my tie in place-I was able to make the following statement; namely, that I want to emphasize that our party, and myself as its national leader, are committed to the principle of patriation of the Canadian constitution. Surely it is an anachronism for any country to have to turn to the legislature of another nation in order to amend its most basic statute. We can all agree on that, as we can all support any genuine effort by the government to bring the

BNA Act under the sole control of Canadians and of their legislatures.
That was the position I took then, Mr. Speaker, and I stand by it.
I was a little surprised by a tone that I thought was almost apologetic on the part of the Prime Minister in his statement this afternoon. There are, of course, other very important priorities that face this country, but there is no need to suggest that patriation of the constitution and agreeing to an amending formula are any less urgent than some of the other really urgent matters that face the country. It would be time very much well spent on behalf of the country and by our various governments to achieve these objectives. Certainly I agree that symbolic and substantive successes in building the national fabric are very much what we are all here for.
I think perhaps I can be forgiven also for expressing my pleasure and that of my colleagues that the Prime Minister chose to note that the question of proceeding with patriation of the Canadian constitution in the life of this parliament was first raised by my colleague and predecessor leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). I would remind the House that he made that suggestion in the course of pointing out the failure of the government to specify that as a goal in the Speech from the Throne. We are very pleased that the Prime Minister has taken up the suggestion of the hon. member for Halifax


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and I want to assure the government that it has the good will of the House to try to make progress on this matter, and to try to make that progress during the life of this parliament. However, I think it is fair to say that this House needs some very real indication that the Prime Minister will take to heart an earlier part of the statement of the hon. member for Halifax, which the Prime Minister did not quote, in introducing the subject as reported at page 39 of Hansard for October 2, 1974. My predecessor, my colleague from Halifax, said:
If co-operative federalism was at best an imperfect process, its subsequent replacement by confrontation of federalism in this field will be tragic, if continued.
That is a position to which my colleagues and I also strongly adhere. While patriating the constitution would be a constructive, symbolic act, the way that is achieved is of even more symbolic and substantial importance. Patriating the constitution in a co-operative way would be clearly beneficial to our national life. However, achieving that goal in a divisive way which only heightened suspicion across this country would be tragic and unnecessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is an obligation on the part of the government to take very seriously the process of consultation with the provinces on this central question. I would simply express, in passing, a very deep hope and determination on our part in this House to avoid a situation where there might be any suggestion that the provinces are being set up for a subsequent unilateral action by the setting into place of a process of consultation that was not seriously
April 9, 1976

pursued by the federal government and which would not allow for the kind of agreement we must have if we are to have both the symbol of federation and the reality of having at home in Canada an amending formula and constitution with which we can work.
There are two objectives before us: the symbolic act of patriation, and the substantive task of keeping our constitution contemporary by the on-going process of amendment. This latter task in a federal system can only work by co-operation and general consensus. Therefore it is desperately important that those who would be seen as nation builders pursue the symbolic goal of patriation in a way that expands and does not narrow the climate of trust and comradeship in the confederation.
The Prime Minister noted that the control of inflation and decisions on energy pricing are also urgent. Those problems, as well as constitutional matters, will not be resolved in a spirit of confrontation. We face some very difficult matters in dealing with patriation and the substance of an amending formula. All of us in this House will be interested in the process that will be carried on now that the correspondence is tabled. We firmly hope that progress can be made toward the goal of achieving patriation and the goal of achieving an amending formula as a result of agreement. That is a process in which the government and the provinces can count upon the full support of me and of my party on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made a statement and has tabled correspondence on the patriation of the Canadian constitution. This party welcomes this statement. For a long time we have believed that a new Canadian constitution was required, not only to exercise the independence of Canada but also because the old constitution, the British North America Act, is in many ways defective and obsolete.
The Prime Minister appears to have adopted the Victoria Charter formula. I am glad to say that we agree with that and believe it is much less rigid than the Fulton-Favreau formula so far as amendment is concerned. We believe it should be acceptable. We agree also that there should be permanent guarantees of language rights, English as well as French, and that such guarantees should be entrenched in the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the House that the patriation of the constitution and the adoption of the amending formula is only a first step. We believe a new constitution is required. I remind the House and the Prime Minister in particular that the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons reported in 1972 after and not before the Victoria Conference, and made 105 definite recommendations. I hope they will be looked at because we believe many of these recommendations are particularly valuable. The hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), a very learned man in this field, was the co-chairman of that committee.
The Canadian Constitution
1 wish to mention just one or two things as illustrations of the sort of recommendations made in very practical fields. It was suggested that it should be made clear that the federal and provincial powers should be concurrent to deal with air and water pollution. We also note the recommendation that Canada's international treaty making powers should be clarified and expanded.
We also urge-and I know the Prime Minister has been very much interested in this subject over the years-that at the appropriate time the new constitution should contain entrenched provisions for the maintenance of the fundamental rights and human freedoms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Indeed we think that would be far more effective than the Bill of Rights that we have which was passed by this parliament.
In general, Mr. Speaker, we would recommend the decentralization of government powers in areas touching cultural and social policy, and greater centralization on the other hand at the national level of powers that have important economic effects throughout Canada. I have said that many of the proposals contained in the report of the joint committee are highly practical. I must say that I, and I think many others in the House, deplore the tendency, which seems to be more common, to assert that constitutions do not matter.
In fact a workable distribution of power is essential to the humanity and development of Canada. The Prime Minister's statement seems to contemplate, as I read it, three different methods of seeking patriation. We should like to study these carefully.
We believe that whatever is decided on as the right course should not be too rigid. There is serious danger if the method Canada should adopt would be one of too great rigidity. We believe that the Prime Minister's statement perhaps over-emphasizes the necessity for unanimous consent. In fact this convention, or practice as I think the Prime Minister called it, was not followed at all until about the year 1940. After all there is a difference between a constitutional law, or rule, and part of it is that a mere convention or practice certainly should not be allowed to become too rigid.
We believe with the Prime Minister that the consent of all the provinces to an amending formula in respect of any changes in the distribution of power should indeed be sought. That has been the practice, and certainly should be the practice. However, we do not think that if total unanimity is not possible parliament should be paralyzed in seeking patriation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I also received the document and the letters written to the Quebec premier as well as the proclamation.
Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps a dissenting voice this afternoon in the House because I am completely flabbergasted by the proclamation which the Prime Minister has
21804-42Vi

April 9, 1976
The Canadian Constitution
just read. I knew that the Prime Minister was a centralist, an emperor, but I did not know that he was such a dictator.
The gesture that he has just made is beyond any precedent in our history. When he read the letter he wrote to the Quebec premier, Mr. Robert Bourassa, in which he stated his intentions of patriating the constitution, I thought that he wanted to court him but at the end of his letter, he merely said that he would act just the same even if he did not get any reply. That, Mr. Speaker, is really a very bad start. In short, the Prime Minister does not refuse to discuss the matter with Mr. Bourassa, but he reserves the right to act as he sees fit. If that is not Russian-type dictatorship, it is no dictatorship at all, Mr. Speaker.
That reminds me of the last meeting between the Prime Minister of Canada and his opposite number from Quebec, Mr. Bourassa when, from the heights of his arrogance, he treated the Quebec premier like a child in kindergarten. But I want to forget what the Prime Minister said.
To my mind, not a single Quebecer will ever forget that insult. Today, the other provinces are being pushed around. There again, the Prime Minister considers the provincial premiers a bit like so many nonentities.
The Prime Minister seems to say this: I am Prime Minister of Canada; I proclaim this or that; whether you are for or against, I could not care less. And should you even deign reply within eight days, I shall consider your silence approval of my insults.
The Prime Minister is forgetting his Canadian history, or perhaps does he want to proclaim himself above all our history to create another Canada which will be far from "strong and free"! In fact, the provinces signed the constitution, through which they gave birth to the federal institution that would take over administration.
It is the provinces which, voluntarily, one after the other, joined Confederation. The best proof the provinces freely decided is that Newfoundland, the last one to join, waited until 1948. The same provinces are still absolutely free to remain within the confederative agreement. The day some province decides to withdraw, either because it finds its rights are infringed on, or because its people are sick of being siphoned off by a never-satisfied central government, that province will have absolute right, and I repeat absolute right, to withdraw and say: "Goodby centralists!"
For that reason, I maintain it is up to the provinces an the provinces alone, to decide on the constitution issue. Today, as he regularly does, the Prime Minister changes roles by substituting his will for that of the provinces. And we Quebecers-will be in for it once more. It is somehow too bad the same sad happening befells us while we have a French Canadian heading Canada.
Such tragic events happened under other French Canadians I do not dare name. I simply stamp out any memory of them. Many ask if we are against patriating the constitution. My answer is "No", to the extent it is patriat-ed by the proper authorities and to the benefit of the provinces. Let them ensure that every province requested it, let them ensure the constitution will come back without

any amendment. We support storing that paper in Parliament.
We, especially Quebecers, demand power of veto for our provincial government. We want it to demand not only constitutional guarantees in education, that is French language and culture, but also territorial and every other guarantee. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have no wish to run the risk of going through a second Labrador.
We lost Labrador because the decision was made between Newfoundland and the government of Canada, while under the same circumstances, between other provinces, boundaries were always determined by the two governments concerned. In the case of Labrador, Quebec had no voice. This is why I say we do not wish to go through another Labrador and risk losing more territory without even being consulted.
Reading the proclamation, we see the Prime Minister is basically interested in amending the constitution not in patriation itself. That is the true reason for his unilateral action. He wants the greatest powers to amend the constitution in order to give more of them to Ottawa and less to the provinces. He proposes three methods to amend the constitution, when he knows quite well that Quebec will accept only one, that is its right of veto on anything affecting the interior of Quebec and the unanimous consent of all provinces for anything that concerns Canada.
Why then beat around the bush and try to disguise his intentions. In paragraph (A) of the proclamation, the Prime Minister is again trying to minimize the impact by leading us to believe the British North America Act is not as rigid as the requirements of Quebec. We can read this formula on page 2 of the proclamation, and I shall spare you the reading of this formula.
He talks about a formula which implies the consent of the legislative assemblies of the provinces; but he forgets to say that in practice, and since the adoption of the British North America Act, the unanimous consent of the provinces has always been required. It is a confirmed right. And the Prime Minister tells us-


An hon. Member:: By whom?


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: By all the successive governments. And the Prime Minister talks about consultation with the provinces, particularly with Quebec, in a letter to Mr. Bourassa.
Have we not repeated often enough, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a right to be consulted that Quebec needs, but a right of veto on all decisions affecting the province and the unanimous consent of all provinces on the other decisions affecting Canada. It is to that condition, and to that condition only, that we will accept the formula.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that the one aspect of the statement made by the Prime Minister that causes slight concern here has to do with the reference to possible unilateral action by the federal government. I think that the statement here today seems to carry a slightly threatening tone. I wonder if the Prime Minister would indicate to the House whether he thinks that his reference to unilateral action as a last resort is necessary as an incen-
April 9, 1976

tive to achieve agreement from the provinces. Would he also indicate to the House what kind of conditions, in his view, would have to apply before he resorted to what he calls in his statement the last resort of unilateral action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should first make it clear that when the Leader of the Opposition talks about the federal government, I understand that he understands, as I do, that we are talking about an action of the federal parliament. Everywhere throughout the documents I talk, not about the government, but about a joint resolution of both houses of parliament. If this is understood, the reason why I talk in there of the possibility of unilateral action is that I am reporting to the premiers of the provinces on a discussion we had about a year ago in which we all agreed we should attempt to do this, as the Leader of the Opposition agrees, by unanimous action.
The question can be asked, and was asked, and it is to that question that I address myself: if there is not unanimity in agreeing to patriate, are we then prevented from acting as we have not acted for the last 49 years? My answer to that is that we are not prevented legally from acting. There is a belief by many people that we would not even be prevented politically. I believe that is the position which has been taken by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).
We do not necessarily have to have unanimity. The position of the government is that we will seek agreement to the extent it is possible between all ten provinces, but that we will have to take our decisions in the next couple of years-since the Leader of the Opposition also talks about the life of this parliament-as to whether it cannot be done without the unanimous consent of all the provinces. The advantage of the formula which I spell out in my letters is that it permits patriation-or matriation, as has been suggested by one hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to take place through action by the federal government, but in a way which diminishes in no way the rights of the provinces, in a way which increases in no way the rights of the federal government, and which even suggests that unanimity will indeed be the rule even on amendments until some other formula is agreed to, so in this sense we believe it is possible, legally, and we hope that it is possible politically to achieve this result. That will depend on the will of the provinces, and it will depend on the actions taken by this parliament.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I think I now have clearly in mind the area in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would consider unilateral action by this parliament to be appropriate in the absence of unanimity, but I should just like to make absolutely certain that I understand him clearly. Of course in a sense it is hypothetical because it has not happened, but it is important to be absolutely clear about it because the question of the possibility of unilateral action has been raised.
As I understand it, the Prime Minister has in mind that this parliament might act unilaterally only to the extent of requesting the British parliament to forgo any future right
The Canadian Constitution
to legislate with regard to our constitution. Is this the extent to which unilateral action is contemplated in the absence of unanimity, and is this precisely what the Prime Minister has in mind with regard to patriation in the absence of any unanimous agreement at this time on an amendment formula?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member for Halifax expressed it admirably. We are not seeking unilateral action in order to increase our powers, or to decrease the powers of the provinces either now or in the future, but unilateral action only to get the British parliament to cease and desist from its present legal powers under the Statute of Westminster to legislate for Canada. That is the simplest hypothesis, and this is the first of the three courses of action which I suggest to the provinces. This is the minimum action. It would result, of course, in a non amendment formula existing in the Canadian constitution or alternatively, as I suggested in the letter, a formula which would only be possible hereafter through unanimity. In other words, the unanimity would continue to be required in order to modify in any way the constitution. I suggest that unanimity is not required in order to get that constitution back to Canada. I just confirm the understanding of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I understand the distaste of the Prime Minister for the continuing right of Westminster to amend the constitution, and I am sure he will agree with me that simply removing that right constitutes patriation in a sense but does not really take us very far, and I am sure does not go as far as he would like to go, and certainly does not go as far as I would like to see achieved.
However, I should simply like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will give this whole question sufficient priority with a view to attempting to achieve an agreement and understanding on an amended formula. I would regard this as a great personal favour to me during my life in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can indicate that it was with that importance in mind-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that I indicated in my letter to the premiers the second course which I described and which indeed does include a formula for amendment, a less rigid formula for amendment. It is with that in mind that I wrote our preference and expressed our preference for that course, if indeed we can convince the provinces that it is a desirable one, and I am honoured that the hon. member for Halifax considers that my action there was taken as a favour to him.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister about how this situation is to be followed up. I read the letters he wrote to the premiers, and I do not think they explicity call for any answers, although by implication the Prime Minister seemed to be seeking the views of the premiers on the matters discussed in his

April 9, 1976
The Canadian Constitution
correspondence. Is it proposed to seek from the premiers some definite answer, or is it proposed to call a conference of some sort to see how far unanimity can go in these matters? To put it in a simple way, where do we go from here?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I made this suggestion in my letter to the premiers that if they wanted further discussion, or further elucidation of the various courses we were indicating, the Secretary for the Federal-Provincial Relations in the Privy Council Office, Mr. Gordon Robertson, would gladly meet the premiers or their officials, as indeed he has been meeting them over the past year, to explain further the contents of the present letter. I also indicated that, if the premiers so desired, at the meeting of first ministers which is planned for early May when we will be meeting to discuss the price of oil and gas, perhaps on that occasion, as was done last April, we might take a short time to seek out the opinions of the various premiers. Therefore, it is possible, and hopeful, that I will be receiving written communications before that, but I think it is to be expected that at that meeting we will take some little time in order to deal with this matter.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If the premiers do respond to these letters and correspondence they have received from the Prime Minister, will this House be informed in due course, either by tabling or by way of a statement by the Prime Minister, so that we in parliament can be aware of the momentum with which this proposal is going forward?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed in the realm of hypothesis. If there were to be quick agreement and consent by all concerned between now and the early part of May, and if other parties saw fit to adopt such resolutions quickly, certainly we on this side would be prepared to seek time between now and the end of June. I must indicate that this is only on the unlikely hypothesis that everybody is ready, willing, able and anxious to get it done that soon. As one of the premiers suggested last year, it would have been nice had we been able to do it at the time the Queen was in Canada. That did not indicate any kind of deadline on my part. I think this is something we can do just as easily during the next session as during this session, but I am completely in the hands of both houses of parliament and, of course, of those of the premiers as to the most appropriate time.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that the right hon. Prime Minister has received and read the message addressed to all members of the Canadian Parliament by the Societe Saint-Jean Baptiste of the province of Quebec. In this message, we can note the following, and I would like the Prime Minister to comment on this. I therefore quote from this message:
First, the federal government and the provinces should agree to a review of the present constitution which would recognize Canadian bi-nationalism as one of the constituting elements of the country, clearly establish the respective jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments, clarify their power to collect taxes and spend money, and create a constitutional court with all guarantees of objectivity.
Second, once this review has been completed, an agreement should be made not only among the ten provinces, but also between the two

constituting nations of the country about a process for eventual constitutional amendments.
The last paragraph seems to come close to the idea that the Prime Minister has just expressed.
Finally, when both these conditions have been met, the British North America Act which constitutes our present constitution can be relinquished and the new constitution can be promulgated, which will patriate our constitution.
These are the wishes expressed in this message.
If the Prime Minister has read this message, could he make some comments on this subject if this is the procedure that he wants to follow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I take the liberty of saying to the hon. member for Bellechasse that this is not the view of the hon. member for Roberval, who is the spokesman for the Social Credit Party. He did not mention these matters at all on behalf of his party. Unless I am mistaken, he indicated two essential and fundamental conditions: the right of veto for Quebec and no action by the federal government to amend the constitution without the unanimous consent of the provinces. Those are the only two conditions he spelled out. The hon. member for Roberval nods his head in assent. I am very pleased to let him know that if he carefully reads the formula he will see that I propose these two conditions he rightly finds essential. They are in fact in the proposals I put forward. So I hope I can count on the support of the Social Credit Party for this gesture I want to make.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question on the most worth while statement he has just made. In view of what all sides here agree to be the fundamental importance of the matter, would the Prime Minister be willing to have parliament, on behalf of the people of Canada, take a further real part in the ongoing discussion he comtemplates with regard to bringing home our constitution and an appropriate amending formula for it, by having the documents he tabled today referred to a committee of parliament for consideration and public hearing, not necessarily immediately, but perhaps after the provincial premiers have made their initial replies, assuming of course, that they do not immediately agree with the government's proposal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no strong objection to this course, I would want to point out to the hon. member, however, that I think we would all be mistaken if we thought this problem could be solved by a committee of this House. I believe the studies of the constitution and, indeed, the attitude of spokesmen for various parties, indicates there is strong support for the general course of action being discussed here this afternoon. The next step is to see whether the provinces agree. If they do agree, I suggest that we should then, rather than now, refer it to a committee of the House for further consultation. If they do not agree, I think it might be a mistake but I will certainly consider the suggestion of the hon. member, to create a degree of expectation in the minds of the people of Canada that a committee of this House will in any way serve to get the province to change their minds.
I think the first step is to see whether the provinces agree. If they do agree I take it we will have no difficulty.
April 9, 1976

If they do not agree, then we should perhaps ask ourselves is parliament to be required to take the course I have suggested, and which I think has been very succinctly and accurately described by the hon. member for Halifax. This would be my preference. If the House wants to spend some time on this matter for other reasons, I have no objection. It would be a matter for the House leaders to see if this has sufficient priority at this time to take up the time of a committee.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that is particularly vital to the small provinces, and certainly to my province which was the last to come into Confederation. I should like to ask whether the Prime Minister feels that in the absence of agreement, as a last resort, the Parliament of Canada by an address of both Houses has the right to bring back unilaterally the British North America Act, which is what we are talking about, and then, following that, whether the same parliament of Canada has the right to change the BNA Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No.


James Aloysius McGrath: If that does not follow, my question to the Prime Minister is this: What is the point in bringing back the constitution unilaterally in the absence of an agreement on an amending formula?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without wanting to play on words I would say that the proposition as stated by the hon. member does not follow but in a sense it precedes. What I mean is that the Parliament of Canada now has the legal right, and in fact it has exercised that right historically, to act unilaterally in amending the constitution. It has done so in circumstances where provinces in effect have objected to the federal parliament addressing the Parliament of Westminster to change the BNA Act. This has in fact been done.
What I am proposing now is that patriation be followed by a situation where the federal government would not unilaterally have this power. It would only have this power to act, however, with the unanimity of the provinces in a preferred formula, with a certain right of veto to the provinces, but not an absolute right.
The hon. member then proceeds to ask what is the point? That is something which I am afraid I cannot make a satisfactory response to in order to satisfy the member. If he is satisfied with the situation in which for 110 years the constitution of this country has only been amendable by a foreign parliament, I cannot convince him that it is a matter of pride, perhaps, to seek the national purpose which will permit us to demonstrate that in such a basic matter we can act, in deed, and will not have to wait another 100 years.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the province of Newfoundland, which came into Confederation 27 years ago as a dominion under the Statute of Westminster, carried with it certain sovereign rights which are embodied in the BNA Act; for example, offshore mineral rights, and the Labrador boundary which is still not totally acceptable to certain elements in the province of Quebec. This is a matter of some concern to my province. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister, under the proposed formula which he is
The Canadian Constitution
now presenting to the provinces, what protection would there be of the rights of individual provinces, apart from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec which would enjoy veto rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it depends on what particular formula is acceptable to and agreed to by the provinces. If it is the Victoria formula to which all provinces agreed, there would be a right of veto to exercise in certain circumstances by a combination of provinces. If it is the first proposition, the most simple one, the one to which I believe the former leader of the opposition referred, there would be an absolute veto by all provinces on amending the constitution. There is where it cannot be amended now.
I must point out to the hon. member there are many areas where the Canadian constitution, and indeed the constitution of the provinces, can now be amended in Canada. This would not change. What would change is that in those fundamental aspects of our constitution which cannot now be amended in Canada, following this action they would be amendable in Canada, however, I repeat, with the guarantees to the provinces which I just discussed.


Mr. Joyal:: Mr. Speaker, the letter which the right hon. Prime Minister has sent to the provincial premiers mentions in its first part that the constitutional guarantees which are included in the project and defined in paragraph 38, chapter 4, were requested on the express representations of the Quebec premier. The contents of this paragraph 38 is broad enough to include an extensive definition of the French language and culture. During the discussions which the secretary of the Privy Council had with the Quebec premier, was this concept defined so as to make room for immigration and communication issues?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, naturally the immigration and communication issues were discussed by the representatives of the Quebec and federal governments. The policy written in paragraph 38 does not concern those specific subjects. It is a much broader policy pertaining to the French language and culture as well as everything concerned with the French fact in Canada.
And again, it is a policy which has been adopted after consultation with Quebec. The other issues referred to by the hon. member concerns the division of powers, and as far as this is specifically concerned, we agreed last April that we had better not deal with the subject. It was better to deal with the amendment formula. The premier of Quebec did everything he could. There also had to be constitutional guarantees with regard to the French fact, the French language and culture in Canada, but once again, the April agreement was to the effect of leaving alone the division of powers. And I think the experience of the past 50 years shows that indeed it is better to dissociate the two operations: first to bring it home with or without an amendment formula, and then deal with the question of the division of powers among ourselves, Canadians, rather than thinking that can be achieved more easily because the constitution is still in England.
April 9, 1976

The Canadian Constitution


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, this is something of a lesson for me, learning about the constitution and its problems. I am hesitant to ask the Prime Minister a question, but I will do so and possibly display my ignorance on the subject.
Assuming the patriation of the constitution and assuming continued difficulties on unanimity for an amending formula, does the Prime Minister envisage that there could be certain individual matters on which there would be unanimity for an addition to, deletion from, or amendment of some sort of the British North America Act after patriation? An obvious example is that there may well be unanimity now on an amendment to the act on the entrenchment of language rights or the Bill of Rights. Does the Prime Minister envisage that being possible? Does he envisage canvassing both houses of parliament and the provinces to make some of those amendments, one at a time, to the legislation after patriation, while we are waiting for agreement on an amending formula?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is the course which has been followed by this country for the past 110 years. We have taken subjects one by one, and in some cases unilaterally, in some cases acted with unanimity, and in other cases acted as a result of an agreement between the federal government and one or two provinces when only one or two provinces were concerned. The hon. member is really suggesting that we continue "waiting for Godot." This may indeed be what we will have to do. This has been the course in the past 109 or 110 years. It is one which I, of course, would be foolish to reject. What we are attempting
to do, however, is to be able to reach agreement on the basic technique, one which will permit us to pursue the course suggested by the hon. member, but without having to make the pilgrimage to Westminster each time we reach some kind of agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: For the final question, I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is more of a point of order than a question of substance. Is it clear that the material to be appended to today's Hansard includes the letters which the Prime Minister wrote to the premiers, and the draft proclamation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the substance of the letters that I tabled. If the House so wills, I think it would be advantageous to have the whole material appended to Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I take it from that response it is safe to assume the House has given its unanimous consent to the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the material be tabled and that it be printed as an appendix to today's
Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, all documents tabled by the Prime Minister.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
April 9, 1976


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
(Same letter sent to all other Premiers)

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa K1A 0A2 April 19, 1975
The Honourable William G. Davis, Q.C.,
Premier of Ontario,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
My dear Premier:
I was very pleased indeed at the reaction of yourself and our fellow First Ministers, during our dinner on April 9, to my proposal that we should proceed at an early date to the "patriation" of the British North America Act with the amending clause agreed on at Victoria. I am encouraged to believe that, after fifty years of effort, we may finally dispose of the last remnant of our one-time colonial status that is involved in our not being able to amend our own constitution in totality.
I am enclosing herewith a copy of Part IX of the Victoria Charter. As you know, there was no objection to it in 1971 by any government. It was regarded as the best solution that could be found to the difficult problem of making changes in future to those parts of our constitution that cannot now be amended under either Section 91(1) or Section 92(1) of the B.N.A. Act.
There are three Articles in Part IX-Articles 53, 54 and 55-which reproduce the substance of Sections 91(1) and 92(1). These were included at Victoria as a part of the "tidying up" of the constitution that would have been accomplished by the Charter which, of course, covered much more than simply the amending procedure. What I am proposing now, as I made clear, is that we should not, at this time, get into any questions of substance or form at all: we should simply "patriate" with an amending clause to cover those parts of the B.N.A. Act that are not now covered. This would mean that we would not now act on Articles 53, 54 and 55 since they involve amendment of Section 91 and 92 of the B.N.A. Act. We would move simply with regard to the other Articles of Part IX. We would leave for future action under the new amending procedure whatever changes of form or of substance we or future governments may want to accomplish in the Canadian constitution.
The procedure for "patriation" was discussed at the Working Session of the Constitutional Conference on February 8-9, 1971. It is outlined in pages 399 to 402 of the Secretary's Report on "The Constitutional Review, 19681971". As you will see, the procedure contemplates three main steps: approval by the legislatures of the provinces and by both Houses of Parliament; legislation by the British Parliament and, finally, the issue of a Proclamation by the Governor General. The legislation by the British Par-

[Stage Direction]
liament would provide the legal validity for the Canadian proclamation and its provisions about the procedure of amendment. It would also provide that no future British law should have application to Canada and would make consequential repeal or amendment of British statutes affecting the Canadian constitution. The issuance of the proclamation by the Governor General would coincide with the effective date of the British legislation. Once all this had been done, we would have full and complete capacity to deal with our constitution in Canada and the British Parliament would no longer continue to have the powers it still legally has to deal with the law and constitution of Canada.
I was particularly taken with the suggestion at our dinner that it might be desirable to accomplish the "patriation" of the B.N.A. Act just before the Olympic Games in 1976. The Queen will be visiting Canada for the formal opening of the Games. It would be most appropriate if she could be here for some suitable ceremony in the National Capital, attended by all the First Ministers of Canada, to complete this historic process relating to our constitution. Another alternative would be to hold the ceremonies on July 1. To meet either of the suggested times, it would mean that the resolutions of the legislatures and the Joint Address of Parliament would all have to be passed at an early point in their respective sessions in 1976. The British Parliament would then have to legislate in its 1976 session, probably by May or June if that could be accomplished. This would leave time to plan the ceremony for the proclamation and whatever other formal arrangements seem appropriate. While all this would require prompt action, the substance of what is to be approved by the legislative bodies is brief and simple. I would hope that we could meet the schedule that would make the events of 1976 and the visit of the Queen especially historic.
I have asked Gordon Robertson to communicate with your office to arrange a convenient time to call on you on my behalf to discuss all aspects of what is proposed. He plans to have Frank Carter, the Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations, accompany him with the thought that they could use the occasion of the visit also to discuss with you, your Ministers or your officials any other questions pertaining to federal-provincial relations that you think could usefully be explored with them.
I was very glad to have had the occasion on April 9-10 to join with you and the other First Ministers in the discussion of the important problems that were before the Conference. It may well be, however, that the history books of the future will regard the discussion at our dinner on April 9 as a more memorable part of our meeting.
Sincerely,
P. E. Trudeau
[Stage Direction]
April 9, 1976

[Stage Direction]
Art. 49 Amendments to the Constitution of Canada may from time to time be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the Legislative Assemblies of at least a majority of the Provinces that includes.
(1)	every Province that at any time before the issue of such proclamation had, according to any previous general census, a population of at least twenty-five per cent of the population of Canada;
(2)	at least two of the Atlantic Provinces;
(3)	at least two of the Western Provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the Western Provinces.
Art. 50 Amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, of the Provinces may from time to time be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the Legislative Assembly of each Province to which an amendment applies.
Art. 51 An amendment may be made by proclamation under Article 49 or 50 without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if within ninety days of the passage of a resolution by the House of Commons authorizing its issue the Senate has not passed such a resolution and at any time after the expiration of the ninety days the House of Commons again passes the resolution, but any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the ninety days.
Art. 52 The following rules apply to the procedures for amendment described in Articles 49 and 50:
(1)	either of these procedures may be initiated by the Senate or the House of Commons or the Legislative Assembly of a Province;
(2)	a resolution made for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.
Art. 53 The Parliament of Canada may exclusively make laws from time to time amending the Constitution of Canada, in relation to the executive Government of Canada and the Senate and House of Commons.
Art. 54 In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to the amendment from time to time of the Constitution of the Province.
Art. 55 Notwithstanding Articles 53 and 54, the following matters may be amended only in accordance with the procedure in Article 49;
(1)	the office of the Queen, of the Governor General and of the Lieutenat-Governor;
(2)	the requirements of the Constitution of Canada respecting yearly sessions of the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures;
(3)	the maximum period fixed by the Constitution of Canada for the duration of the House of Commons and the Legislative Assemblies;
(4)	the powers of the Senate;
(5)	the number of members by which a Province is entitled to be represented in the Senate, and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(6)	the right of a Province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing the Province;
(7)	the principles of proportionate representation of the Provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada; and
(8)	except as provided in Article 16, the requirements of this Charter respecting the use of the English or French language.
Art. 56 The procedure prescribed in Article 49 may not be used to make an amendment when there is another provision for making such amendment in the Constitution of Canada, but that procedure may nonetheless be used to amend any provision for amending the Constitution, including this Article, or in making a general consolidation and revision of the Constitution.
Art. 57 In this Part, "Atlantic Provinces" means the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and "Western Provinces" means the Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
(Same letter sent to Premier Schreyer, Premier Hatfield, Premier Moores, Premier Regan, Premier Davis, Premier Campbell, Premier Blakeney.)

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa K1A 0A2 March 31, 1976
The Honourable Peter Lougheed,
Premier of Alberta,
Legislative Building,
Edmonton, Alberta.
My dear Premier:
I had been hoping to be in touch with you well before this to advise you about progress in the exercise we started last April, with our discussion at 7 Rideau Gate, for "patriation" of the B.N.A. Act. Since then, all of you, with the exception of Premier Bennett, have received Mr. Gordon Robertson who has discussed the project with you on my behalf. Those discussions took place between May and mid-July of 1975. Premier Barrett was unable to arrange a meeting prior to the election in British Columbia but Mr. Robertson will be meeting Premier Bennett in early April. Discussions with Quebec have taken a good deal of time and it was not until March 5th that I had the opportunity of reviewing the question with the Premier of Quebec. I thought it essential to know his attitude before proceeding to further action.
You will recall that we started with agreement in principle on the desirability of "patriating" the B.N.A. Act and, at the same time, establishing as law the amending procedure that had been agreed to in Victoria in 1971. We also agreed that we would not, in the present "patriation" exercise, consider substantive changes to the B.N.A. Act itself since any entry on that course would, as the discus-
April 9, 1976
[Stage Direction]
sions from 1968 to 1971 had shown, make early action impossible. Mr. Bourassa indicated, however, that it would be difficult for his government to agree to this, unless the action also included "constitutional guarantees" for the French language and culture. We agreed that our general acceptance of the plan, in principle, would be subject to more precise exploration and definition, and this was the purpose of the discussions Mr. Robertson had with you on my behalf. I should first report on what developed in the course of those discussions, although the Premiers Mr. Robertson saw later will be generally aware of the way in which our original proposal grew.
It quickly became apparent in Mr. Robertson's discussions that the action for "patriation" and establishment of the amending procedure would be more meaningful for, and more acceptable to, a number of provinces if certain other alterations in our constitutional situation could be established at the same time. Most of these alterations, with the exception of Mr. Bourassa's "constitutional guarantees", were among the things that had been included in the Victoria Charter. They included the provision for consultation with the provinces about appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and the special handling of cases arising from the civil law of Quebec. They included also the provision concerning the reduction of regional disparities. Certain of the western provinces wanted to have the amending procedure itself modified so that the requirement with regard to consent from the four western provinces would be the same as that for the four eastern provinces. This would mean deletion of the population provision respecting the western provinces that was inserted at Victoria.
The main problem was the definition of the "constitutional guarantees" to which Mr. Bourassa had referred at the outset. Mr. Robertson found that the Premiers he spoke to after the initial discussions with Mr. Bourassa in May had no objection in principle to "constitutional guarantees", although all made it clear that they would want to consider them in detail once they had been worked out with Quebec and reduced to writing.
I will not go into all the difficulties that are presented by the concept of "constitutional guarantees"; they are many and complex. Discussions with Mr. Bourassa's representatives finally led to a formulation that was included in a document sent to him in November, 1975. I am enclosing a copy of the full document herewith. I would draw your attention especially to Parts IV and VI. The formulation of the principal "constitutional guarantee" is Part IV (Article 38). It is buttressed by Part VI (Article 40) and also by the provisions concerning language in Part III.
As I have mentioned, the "constitutional guarantee" was a concept raised by Mr. Bourassa and stated by him to be essential. Articles 38 and 40 attempt to cover the points made by his representatives. Mr. Bourassa knows that my colleagues and I share some concern about the Articles, and he understands that it will fall to him to explain them to his fellow Premiers, in the light of the facts relating to the position of the French language and culture in Canada.
I should emphasize that the document, while it is styled a "Draft Proclamation", was put in this form simply to show with maximum clarity what the result would be if all
the proposals, as they had emerged in the course of Mr. Robertson's consultations, were found acceptable by all governments. It should not be regarded as a specific proposal or draft to which anyone is committed at this stage, since there has not been agreement to the totality of it by anyone. It is rather in the nature of a report on the various ideas, including Mr. Bourassa's "constitutional guarantee", as they developed in the course of the informal discussions from April to November, 1975.
As I stated earlier, most of the "Draft Proclamation" consists of provisions of the Victoria Charter which various Premiers have asked to have included in any action we take. In some cases there are adjustments of the Victoria provisions in order to take into account altered circumstances since 1971 and to benefit by some hind-sight. The new parts of this "report" are the Parts IV and VI to which I have already referred. For ease of reference the main elements are:
(a)	A Preamble. This is entirely new and is simply an idea of the way a total presentation might look.
(b)	Part I is the amending formula contained in the Victoria Charter made applicable to those parts of the Constitution not now amendable in Canada. Thus Articles 49, 50, 51, 52, 56 and 57 of Part IX of the Victoria Charter are included, while Articles 53, 54 and 55, which were designed to replace Articles 91(1) and 92(1) of the British North America Act, are not. The amending formula has not been modified to take account of the views expressed by certain Western Premiers concerning the population qualification for agreement by the Western provinces. I suggest that this might be a matter that, in the first instance, the four Western Premiers might attempt to solve among themselves.
(c)	Part II, which is Part IV of the Victoria Charter concerning the Supreme Court, with a final Article (included in another Part of the Victoria Charter) to protect the status of Judges already appointed.
(d)	Part III, which is a modified version of Part II of the Victoria Charter concerning language rights. It would entrench the constitutional status of the English and French languages federally. It would not affect the provinces, but it would permit a province, under Article 35, to entrench its own provision if it so wished.
(e)	Part IV, which is the "guarantee" designed to protect the French Language and culture against adverse action by the Parliament and Government of Canada.
(f)	Part V, which is essentially Part VII of the Victoria Charter on Regional Disparities. The presentation has been slightly altered but there is no change in substance whatever.
(g)	Part VI, whcih is a new Article designed to indicate the spirit in which Governments may enter into agreements. In two of the three areas specifically mentioned, major agreements with Quebec have been concluded over the past two years (family allowances and consultation on immigration).
Mr. Bourassa advised me in our conversation on March 5th that the things he considers to be necessary might well go beyond what we, in the federal government, have understood to be involved in the present exercise. In part
[Stage Direction]
April 9, 1976
they might relate to the distribution of powers. I advised him that the Government of Canada, for its part, feels that it can go no further as part of this exercise than the constitutional guarantees that are embodied in the document and that indeed even they might find difficulty of acceptance in their present form. To go further would involve entry upon the distribution of powers, with the consequences to which I have referred. We must, then, consider three alternatives that are open to us in these circumstances.
Let us begin with the simplest alternative. The Government of Canada remains firmly of the view that we should as a minimum, achieve patriation" of the B.N.A. Act. It is not prepared to contemplate the continuation of the anomalous situation in which the British Parliament retains the power to legislate with respect to essential parts of the constitution of Canada. Such "patriation" could be achieved by means of an Address of the two Houses of the Canadian Parliament to the Queen, requesting appropriate legislation by the British Parliament to end its capacity to legislate in any way with respect to Canada. Whereas unanimity of the federal government and the provinces would be desirable even for so limited a measure, we are satisfied that such action by the Parliament of Canada does not require the consent of the provinces and would be entirely proper since it would not affect in any way the distribution of powers. In other words, the termination of the British capacity to legislate for Canada would not in any way alter the position as between Parliament and the provincial legislatures whether in respect of jurisdictions flowing from Sections 91 and 92 or otherwise.
However, simple "patriation" would not equip us with an amending procedure for those parts of our constitution that do not come under either Section 91(1) or Section 92(1) of the B.N.A. Act. To meet this deficiency, one could provide in the Address to the Queen that amendment of those parts of the constitution not now amendable in Canada could be made on unanimous consent of Parliament and the legislature until a permanent formula is found and established. In theory this approach would introduce a rigidity which does not now exist, since at present it is the federal Parliament alone which goes to Westminster, and the degree of consultation of or consent by the provinces is a matter only of convention about which there can be differences of view. In practice, of course, the federal government has in the past sought the unanimous consent of the provinces before seeking amendments that have affected the distribution of powers.
A second and perhaps preferable alternative would be to include in the action a provision that could lead to the establishment of a permanent and more flexible amending procedure. That could be done by detailing such a procedure in our Joint Address and having it included in the British legislation as an enabling provision that would come into effect when and only when it had received the formal approval of the legislatures of all the provinces. The obvious amending procedure to set forth would be the one agreed to at Victoria in application to those parts of our constitution not now amendable in Canada. (Part I of the attached "Draft Proclamation"). This could be with of
without modification respecting the four western provinces. (On this last point, the federal government would be quite prepared to accept the proposed modification and it is my understanding that the other provinces would equally agree if the western provinces can arrive at agreement.)
If we took the above step, we would achieve forthwith half of our objective of last April-"patriation"-and we would establish a process by which the other half-the amending procedure-would become effective as and when the provincial legislatures individually signify their agreement. Over a period of time, which I hope would not be long, we would establish the total capacity to amend our constitution under what is clearly the best and most acceptable procedure that has been worked out in nearly fifty years of effort, since the original federal-provincial conference on this subject in 1927. Until full agreement and implementation had been achieved, any constitutional changes that might be needed, and which did not come under Section 91(1) or Section 92(1) or which could not otherwise be effected in Canada could be made subject to unanimous consent. This would impose an interim rigidity for such very rare requirements for amendment, but, as I have said, the practice has, in any event, been to secure unanimous consent before making amendments that have affected the distribution of powers.
A third and more extensive possibility still, would be to include, in the "patriation" action, the entirety of the "Draft Proclamation" I am enclosing. In other words the British Parliament, in terminating its capacity to legislate for Canada, could provide that all of the substance of Parts I to VI would come into effect in Canada and would have full legal force when, and only when, the entirety of those Parts had been approved by the legislatures of all the provinces. At that point, we would have, not only "patriation" and the amending procedure, but also the other provisions that have developed out of the discussions thus far. Here again, of course, until all the Provinces had approved the entire Draft Proclamation, any constitutional change which did not come under Section 91(1) or Section 92(1) would be subject to unanimous consent.
As you can see, there are several possibilities as to the course of action now to take. So far as the federal government is concerned, our much preferred course would be to act in unison with all the provinces. "Patriation" is such a historic milestone that it would be ideal if all Premiers would associate themselves with it.
But if unanimity does not appear possible, the federal government will have to decide whether it will recommend to Parliament that a Joint Address be passed seeking "patriation" of the B.N.A. Act. A question for decision then will be what to add to that action. We are inclined to think that it should, at the minimum, be the amending procedure agreed to at Victoria by all the provinces, with or without modification respecting the western provinces, and subject to the condition about coming into force only when approved by the legislatures of all the provinces as explained above.
The implications of the different possibilities are complex, and you will undoubtedly want to consider them with care. To facilitate consideration, Mr. Robertson would be glad to come to see you, at a convenient time, for such
April 9, 1976
[Stage Direction]
discussions as you might wish to have. When opportunity offers at an early meeting, we might also discuss the matter together.
I would welcome your comments. Mr. Robertson will be in touch with your office to see if you would wish to have a meeting with him and, if so, what time would suit.
Prior to my meeting with Mr. Bourassa, I did not feel that I was in a position to place any documents before Parliament, but I now feel it proper to do so. I would like to table copies of this letter, as well as of the "Draft Proclamation" that is enclosed. If you have any objection, could you please advise me forthwith. If I do not hear to the contrary, I shall plan to table on April 9th. Should you wish to do the same in your legislature, I would of course, have no objection.
Sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa K1A 0A2 March 31, 1976
The Honourable W. R. Bennett,
Premier of British Columbia,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, British Columbia.
My dear Premier:
I very much enjoyed meeting you during my recent visit to British Columbia and having the opportunity of raising with you, among other things, the matter of the "patria-tion" of the British North America Act. You will recall that I mentioned that I had discussed such an exercice with the Premiers of the other provinces at 7 Rideau Gate last April. At my request, all the Premiers with the exception of Mr. Barrett held preliminary discussions with Mr. Gordon Robertson, the Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations, acting on my behalf. Further discussions with Quebec took a good deal of time and it was not until March 5th that I had the opportunity of reviewing the question with the Premier of Quebec. I thought it essential to know his attitude before proceeding to further action.
We started with agreement in principle on the desirability of "patriating" the B.N.A. Act and, at the same time, establishing as law the amending procedure that had been agreed to in Victoria in 1971. We also agreed that we would not, in the present "patriation" exercise, consider substantive changes to the B.N.A. Act itself since any entry on that course would, as the discussions from 1968 to 1971 had shown, make early action impossible. Mr. Bourassa indicated, however, that it would be difficult for his government to agree to this unless the action also included "constitutional guarantees" for the French language and culture. We agreed that our general acceptance of the plan, in principle, would be subject to more precise exploration and definition, and this was the purpose of the discussions Mr. Robertson had with the other Premiers on my behalf. I should like to inform you of what developed in the course of those discussions.
It quickly became apparent in Mr. Robertson's discussions that the action for "patriation" and establishment of the amending procedure would be more meaningful for,
and more acceptable to, a number of provinces if certain other alterations in our constitutional situation could be established at the same time. Most of these alterations, with the exception of Mr. Bourassa's "constitutional guarantees", were among the things that had been included in the Victoria Charter. They included the provision for consultation with the provinces about appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and the special handling of cases arising from the civil law of Quebec. They included also the provision concerning the reduction of regional disparities. Certain of the western provinces wanted to have the amending procedure itself modified so that the requirement with regard to consent from the four western provinces would be the same as that for the four eastern provinces. This would mean deletion of the population provision respecting the western provinces that was inserted at Victoria.
The main problem was the definition of the "constitutional guarantees" to which Mr. Bourassa had referred at the outset. Mr. Robertson found that the Premiers he spoke to after the initial discussions with Mr. Bourassa in May had no objection in principle to "constitutional guarantees", although all made it clear that they would want to consider them in detail once they had been worked out with Quebec and reduced to writing.
I will not go into all the difficulties that are presented by the concept of "constitutional guarantee"; they are many and complex. Discussions with Mr. Bourassa's representatives finally led to a formulation that was included in a document sent to him in November, 1975. I am enclosing a copy of the full document herewith. I would draw your attention especially to Parts IV and VI. The formulation of the principal "constitutional guarantee" is Part IV (Article 38). It is buttressed by Part VI (Article 40) and also by the provisions concerning language in Part III.
As I have mentioned, the "constitutional guarantee" was a concept raised by Mr. Bourassa and stated by him to be essential. Articles 38 and 40 attempt to cover the points made by his representatives. Mr. Bourassa knows that my colleagues and I share some concern about the fellow Premiers in the light of the facts relating to the position of the French language and culture in Canada.
I should emphasize that the document, while it is styled a "Draft Proclamation", was put in this form simply to show with maximum clarity what the result would be if all the proposals, as they had emerged in the course of Mr. Robertson's consultations, were found acceptable by all governments. It should not be regarded as a specific proposal or draft to which anyone is committed at this stage since there has not been agreement to the totality of it by anyone. It is rather in the nature of a report on the various ideas, including Mr. Bourassa's "constitutional guarantee", as they developed in the course of the informal discussions from April to November, 1975.
As I stated earlier, most of the "Draft Proclamation" consists of provisions of the Victoria Charter which various Premiers have asked to have included in any action we take. In some cases there are adjustments of the Victoria provisions in order to take into account altered circumstances since 1971 and to benefit by some hind-sight. The new parts of this "report" are the Parts IV and VI to which
[Stage Direction]
April 9, 1976
I have already referred. For ease of reference the main elements are:
(a)	A Preamble. This is entirely new and is simply an idea of the way a total presentation might look.
(b)	Part I is the amending formula contained in the Victoria Charter made applicable to those parts of the Constitution not now mendable in Canada. Thus Articles 49, 50, 51, 52, 56 and 57 of Part IX of the Victoria Charter are included, while Articles 53, 54 and 55, which were designed to replace Articles 91(1) and 92(1) of the British North America Act, are not. The amending formula has not been modified to take account of the views expressed by certain Western Premiers concerning the population qualification for agreement by the Western provinces. I suggest that this might be a matter that, in the first instance, you and your three Western colleagues might attempt to solve amongst yourselves.
(c)	Part II, which is Part IV of the Victoria Charter concerning the Supreme Court, with a final Article (included in another Part of the Victoria Charter) to protect the status of Judges already appointed.
(d)	Part III, which is a modified version of Part II of the Victoria Charter concerning language rights. It would entrench the constitutional status of the English and French languages federally. It would not affect the provinces, but it would permit a province, under Article 35, to entrench its own provision if it so wished.
(e)	Part IV, which is the "guarantee" designed to protect the French language and culture against adverse action by the Parliament and Government of Canada.
(f)	Part V, which is essentially Part VII of the Victoria Charter on Regional Disparities. The presentation has been slightly altered but there is no change in substance whatever.
(g)	Part VI, which is a new Article designed to indicate the spirit in which Governments may enter into agreements. In two of the three areas specifically mentioned, major agreements with Quebec have been concluded over the past two years (family allowances and consultation on immigration).
Mr. Bourassa advised me in our conversation on March 5th that the things he considers to be necessary might well go beyond what we, in the federal government, have understood to be involved in the present exercise. In part they might relate to the distribution of powers. I advised him that the Government of Canada, for its part, feels that it can go no further as part of this exercise than the constitutional guarantees that are embodied in the document and that indeed even they might find difficulty of acceptance in their present form. To go further would involve entry upon the distribution of powers, with the consequences to which I have referred. We must, then, consider three alternatives that are open to us in these circumstances.
Let us begin with the simplest alternative. The Government of Canada remains firmly of the view that we should, as a minimum, achieve "patriation" of the B.N.A. Act. it is not prepared to contemplate the continuation of the anomalous situation in which the British Parliament retains the power to legislate with respect to essential
parts of the constitution of Canada. Such "patriation" could be achieved by means of an Address of the two Houses of the Canadian Parliament to the Queen, requesting appropriate legislation by the British Parliament to end its capacity to legislate in any way with respect to Canada. Whereas unanimity of the federal government and the provinces would be desirable even for so limited a measure, we are satisfied that such action by the Parliament of Canada does not require the consent of the provinces and would be entirely proper since it would not affect in any way the distribution of powers. In other words, the termination of the British capacity to legislate for Canada would not in any way alter the position as between Parliament and the provincial legislatures whether in respect of jurisdictions flowing from Sections 91 and 92 or otherwise.
However, simple "patriation" would not equip us with an amending procedure for those parts of our constitution that do not come under either Section 91(1) or Section 92(1) of the B.N.A. Act. To meet this deficiency, one could provide in the Address to the Queen that amendment of those parts of the constitution not now amendable in Canada could be made on unanimous consent of Parliament and the legislatures until a permanent formula is found and established. In theory this approach would introduce a rigidity which does not now exist, since at present it is the federal Parliament alone which goes to Westminster and the degree of consultation of or consent by the provinces is a matter only of convention about which there can be differences of view. In practice, of course, the federal government has in the past sought the unanimous consent of the provinces before seeking amendments that have affected the distribution of powers.
A second and perhaps preferable alternative would be to include in the action a provision that could lead to the establishment of a permanent and more flexible amending procedure. That could be done by detailing such a procedure in our Joint Address and having it included in the British legislation as an enabling provision that would come into effect when and only when it had received the formal approval of the legislatures of all the provinces. The obvious amending procedure to set forth would be the one agreed to at Victoria in application to those parts of our constitution not now amendable in Canada (Part I of the attached "Draft Proclamation"). This could be with or without modification respecting the four western provinces. (On this last point, the federal government would be quite prepared to accept the proposed modification and it is my understanding that the other provinces would equally agree if the western provinces can arrive at agreement.)
If we took the above step, we would achieve forthwith half of the objective of last April-"patriation"-and we would establish a process by which the other half-the amending procedure-would become effective as and when the provincial legislatures individually signify their agreement. Over a period of time, which I hope would not be long, we would establish the total capacity to amend our constitution under what is clearly the best and most acceptable procedure that has been worked out in nearly fifty years of effort since the original federal-provincial conference on this subject in 1927. Until full agreement
April 9, 1976
[Stage Direction]
and implementation had been achieved, any constitutional changes that might be needed, and which did not come under Section 91(1) or Section 92(1) or which could not otherwise be effected in Canada could be made subject to unanimous consent. This would impose an interim rigidity for such very rare requirements for amendment, but, as I have said, the practice has, in any event, been to secure unanimous consent before making amendments that have affected the distribution of powers.
A third and more extensive possibility still, would be to include, in the "patriation" action, the entirety of the "Draft Proclamation" I am enclosing. In other words the British Parliament, in terminating its capacity to legislate for Canada, could provide that all of the substance of Parts I to VI would come into effect in Canada and would have full legal force when, and only when, the entirety of those Parts had been approved by the legislatures of all the provinces. At that point, we would have, not only "patriation" and the amending procedure, but also the other provisions that have developed out of the discussions thus far. Here again, of course, until all the Provinces had approved the entire Draft Proclamation, any constitutional change which did not come under Section 91(1) or Section 92(1) would be subject to unanimous consent.
As you can see, there are several possibilities as to the course of action now to take. So far as the federal government is concerned, our much preferred course would be to act in unison with all the provinces. "Patriation" is such a historic milestone that it would be ideal if all Premiers would associate themselves with it.
But if unanimity does not appear possible, the federal government will have to decide whether it will recommend to Parliament that a Joint Address be passed seeking "patriation" of the B.N.A. Act. A question for decision then will be what to add to that action. We are inclined to think that it should, at the minimum, be the amending procedure agreed to at Victoria by all the provinces, with or without modification respecting the western provinces, and subject to the condition about coming into force only when approved by the legislatures of all the provinces as explained above.
The implications of the different possibilities are complex and you will undoubtedly want to consider them with care. I understand that Mr. Robertson has made arrangements to go to see you on April 13th to discuss these matters. When opportunity offers, you and I might also discuss the matter together. I would welcome your comments.
Prior to my meeting with Mr. Bourassa, I did not feel that I was in a position to place any documents before Parliament, but I now feel it proper to do so. I would like to table copies of this letter as well as of the "Draft Proclamation" that is enclosed. If you have any objection, could you please advise me forthwith. If I do not hear to the contrary, I shall plan to table on April 9th. Should you wish to do the same in your legislature, I would of course, have no objection.
Sincerely,
P. E. Trudeau
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, K1A 0A6 March 31, 1976
The Honourable Robert Bourassa
Premier of Quebec Parliament Buildings Quebec City, Quebec My dear Premier,
As I told you on March 5th, I did not want to speak to the other Premiers about our discussions on the subject of "patriation" of the British North America Act before getting a clearer idea of your feelings. I have sent them a letter today of which you will find attached a copy in English and French.
All of the letters are identical, except for the one I sent to Mr. Bennett in which I took account of the fact that he had not attended our meeting in April 1975 and that Mr. Robertson has not yet had the opportunity of meeting with him. I trust you will find that the letters represent the facts accurately. Please let me know if you have any objection to my placing the attached letter to the Premiers and the draft proclamation before Parliament on April 9th. It is understood that I would have no objection to you doing the same thing in Quebec.
Sincerely,
(signed) P. E. Trudeau

[Stage Direction]
November 10th, 1975.
Form for a Proclamation of the Governor General
Whereas it is fitting that it should be possible to amend the Constitution of Canada in all respects by action of the appropriate instrumentalities of government in Canada acting separately or in concert as may best suit the matter in question;
And whereas it is desirable to make more specific provision respecting the constitutional status of the English and French languages in Canada and to ensure that changes in the Constitution, interpretation of its provisions or action by the Parliament or Government of Canada should not endanger the continuation and full development of the French language and the culture based thereon;
And whereas it is desirable that the Parliament and Government of Canada and the Legislatures and Governments of the Provinces act effectively to promote equality of opportunity and an acceptable level of public services among the different regions of Canada;
Therefore it is desirable to establish among other things:
(a)	A method for the amendment in Canada of those parts of the Constitution of general interest and concern that cannot now be amended in Canada in which the consent will be required of the Legislatures of Provinces respresentative of both the official language groups of Canada as well as of the Legislatures of Provinces in all of the geographical regions of Canada;
[Stage Direction]
April 9, 1976
(b)	means by which Provinces can participate in the selection of persons to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(c)	principles to guide the Parliament of Canada in the exercise of powers allotted to it under the Constitution of Canada and to guide the Government of Canada in the exercise of powers conferred upon it by the Constitution of Canada and by laws enacted by the Parliament of Canada;
Now therefore We	do proclaim as follows;
Part I
Amendments to the Constitution
Art. 1 Amendments to the Constitution of Canada may from time to time be made by Proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the Legislative Assemblies of at least a majority of the Provinces that includes:
(1)	every Province that at any time before the issue of such Proclamation had, according to any previous general census, a population of at least twenty-five per cent of the population of Canada;
(2)	at least two of the Atlantic Provinces;
(3)	at least two of the Western Provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the Western Provinces.
Art. 2 Amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, of the Provinces may from time to time be made by Proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the Legislative Assembly of each Province to which an amendment applies.
Art. 3 An amendment may be made by Proclamation under Articles 1 or 2 without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the Proclamation if within ninety days of the passage of a resolution by the House of Commons authorizing its issue the Senate has not passed such a resolution and at any time after the expiration of the ninety days the House of Commons again passes the resolution, but any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the ninety days.
Art. 4 The following rules apply to the procedures for amendment described in Articles 1 and 2:
(1)	either of these procedures may be initiated by the Senate or the House of Commons or the Legislative Assembly of a Province;
(2)	a resolution made for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a Proclamation authorized by it.
Art. 5 The procedures prescribed in Articles 1 and 2 may not be used to make an amendment when there is another provision for making such amendment in the Constitution of Canada, but the procedure in Article 1 may nonetheless be used to amend any provision for amending the Constitution, including this Article, or in making a general consolidation and revision of the Constitution.
Art. 6 In this Part "Atlantic Provinces" means the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and "Western Provinces" means the Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Art. 7 The enactments set out in the Schedule shall continue as law in Canada and as such shall, together with this Proclamation and any Proclamation subsequently issued under this Part, collectively be known as the Constitution of Canada, and amendments thereto shall henceforth be made only according to the authority contained therein.
Part II
Supreme Court of Canada
Art. 8 There shall be a general court of appeal for Canada to be known as the Supreme Court of Canada.
Art. 9 The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada, and eight other judges, who shall, subject to this Part, be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada.
Art. 10 Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the Bar of any Province, has, for a total period of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a barrister or advocate at the Bar of any Province.
Art. 11 At least three of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the Bar of the Province of Quebec, have, for a total period of at least ten years, been judges of any court of that Province or of a court established by the Parliament of Canada or barristers or advocates at that Bar.
Art. 12 Where a vacancy arises in the Supreme Court of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada is considering a person for appointment to fill the vacancy, he shall inform the Attorney General of the appropriate Province.
Art. 13 When an appointment is one falling within Article II or the Attorney General of Canada has determined that the appointment shall be made from among persons who have been admitted to the Bar of a specific Province, he shall make all reasonable efforts to reach agreement with the Attorney General of the appropriate Province, before a person is appointed to the Court.
Art. 14 No person shall be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada unless the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of the appropriate Province agree to the appointment, or such person has been recommended for appointment to the Court by a nominating council described in Article 16, or has been selected by the Attorney General of Canada under Article 16.
Art. 15 Where after the lapse of ninety days from the day a vacancy arises in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of a Province have not reached agreement on a person to be
April 9, 1976
[Stage Direction]
appointed to fill the vacancy, the Attorney General of Canada may inform the Attorney General of the appropriate Province in writing that he proposes to convene a nominating council to recommend an appointment.
Art. 16 Within thirty days of the day when the Attorney General of Canada has written the Attorney General of the Province that he proposes to convene a nominating council, the Attorney General of the Province may inform the Attorney General of Canada in writing that he selects either of the following types of nominating councils:
(1)	a nominating council consisting of the following members: the Attorney General of Canada or his nominee and the Attorneys General of the Provinces or their nominees;
(2)	a nominating council consisting of the following members: the Attorney General of Canada or his nominee, the Attorney General of the appropriate Province or his nominee and a Chairman to be selected by the two Attorneys General, and if within six months from the expiration of the thirty days they cannot agree on a Chairman, then the Chief Justice of the appropriate Province, or if he is unable to act, the next senior Judge of his court, shall name a Chairman;
and if the Attorney General of the Province fails to make a selection within the thirty days above referred to, the Attorney General of Canada may select the person to be appointed.
Art. 17 When a nominating council has been created, the Attorney General of Canada shall submit the names of not less than three qualified persons to it about whom he has sought the agreement of the Attorney General of the appropriate Province to the appointment, and the nominating council shall recommend therefrom a person for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada; a majority of the members of a council constitutes a quorum, and a recommendation of a majority of the members at a meeting constitutes a recommendation of the council.
Art. 18 For the purpose of Articles 12 to 17 "appropriate Province" means, in the case of a person being considered for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada in compliance with Article 11, the Province of Quebec, and in the case of any other person being so considered, the Province to the Bar of which such a person was admitted, and if a person was admitted to the Bar of more than one Province, the Province with the Bar of which the person has, in the opinion of the Attorney General of Canada, the closest connection.
Art. 19 Articles 12 to 18 do not apply to the appointment of the Chief Justice of Canada when such appointment is made from among the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Art. 20 The judges of the Supreme Court of Canada hold office during good behaviour until attaining the age of seventy years, but are removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
Art. 21 The Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals on any constitutional question from any judgment of any court in Canada and from any
decision on any constitutional question by any such court in determining any question referred to it, but except as regards appeals from the highest court of final resort in a Province, the Supreme Court of Canada may prescribe such exceptions and conditions to the exercise of such jurisdiction as may be authorized by the Parliament of Canada.
Art. 22 Subject to this Part, the Supreme Court of Canada shall have such further appellate jurisdiction as the Parliament of Canada may prescribe.
Art. 23 The Parliament of Canada may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of such matters in relation of the laws of Canada as may be prescribed by the Parliament of Canada, and authorizing the reference of questions of law or fact to the court and requiring the court to hear and determine the questions.
Art. 24 Subject to this Part, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in all cases is final and conclusive.
Art. 25 Where a case before the Supreme Court of Canada involves questions of law relating to the civil law of the Province of Quebec, and involves no other question of law, it shall be heard by a panel of five judges, or with the consent of the parties, four judges, at least three of whom have the qualifications described in Article 11, and if for any reason three judges of the court who have such qualifications are not available, the court may name such ad hoc judges as may be necessary to hear the case from among the judges who have such qualifications serving on a superior court of record established by the law of Canada or of a superior court of appeal of the Province of Quebec.
Art. 26 Nothing in this Part shall be construed as restricting the power existing at the commencement of this Proclamation of a Provincial Legislature to provide for or limit appeals pursuant to its power to legislate in relation to the administration of justice in the Province.
Art. 27 The salaries, allowances and pension of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada.
Art. 28 Subject to this Part, the Parliament of Canada may make laws to provide for the organization and maintenance of the Supreme Court of Canada, including the establishment of a quorum for particular purposes.
Art. 29 The court existing on the day of the coming into force of this Proclamation under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada shall continue as the Supreme Court of Canada, and the judges thereof shall continue in office as though appointed under this Part except that they shall hold office during good behaviour until attaining the age of seventy-five years, and until otherwise provided pursuant to the provisions of this Part, all laws pertaining to the court in force on that day shall continue, subject to the provisions of this Proclamation.
Part III
Language Rights
Art. 30 English and French are the official languages of Canada, but no provision in this Part shall derogate from
[Stage Direction]
April 9, 1976
any right, privilege, or obligation existing under any other provision of the Constitution.
Art. 31 A person has the right to use English and French in the debates of the Parliament of Canada.
Art. 32 The statutes and the records and journals of the Parliament of Canada shall be printed and published in English and French; and both versions of such statutes are authoritative.
Art. 33 A person has the right to use English and French in giving evidence before, or in any pleading or process in the Supreme Court of Canada and any courts established by the Parliament of Canada, and to require that all documents and judgments issuing from such courts be in English or French.
Art. 34 An individual has the right to the use of the official language of his choice in communications between him and the head or central office of every department and agency of the Government of Canada.
Art. 35 A provincial Legislative Assembly may, by resolution, declare that provisions similar to those of any part of Articles 32, 33 and 34 shall apply to the Legislative Assembly, and to any of the provincial courts and offices of the provincial departments and agencies according to the terms of the resolution, and thereafter such parts apply to the Legislative Assembly, courts and offices specified according to the terms of the resolution; and any right conferred under this Article may be abrogated or diminished only in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Article 2.
Art. 36 A person has the right to the use of the official language of his choice in communications between him and every principal office of the departments and agencies of the Government of Canada that are located in an area where a substantial proportion of the population has the official language of his choice as its mother tongue, but the Parliament of Canada may define the limits of such areas and what constitutes a substantial proportion of the population for the purposes of this Article.
Art. 37 In addition to the rights provided by this Part, the Parliament of Canada may, within its legislative jurisdiction, provide for more extensive use of English and French.
Part IV
Protection of the French Language and Culture
Art. 38 The Parliament of Canada, in the exercise of powers allotted to it under the Constitution of Canada, and the Government of Canada, in the exercise of powers conferred upon it by the Constitution of Canada and by laws enacted by the Parliament of Canada, shall ge guided by, among other considerations for the welfare and advantage of the people of Canada, the knowledge that a fundamental purpose underlying the federation of Canada is to ensure the preservation and the full development of the French language and the culture based on it and neither the Parliament nor the Government of Canada, in the exercise of their respective powers, shall act in a manner that will adversely affect the preservation and development of the French language and the culture based on it.
PartV
Regional Disparities
Art. 39 Without altering the distribution of powers and without compelling the Parliament of Canada or the Legislatures of the Provinces to exercise their legislative powers, the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the Provinces, together with the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces, are committed to:
(a)	the promotion of equality of opportunity and wellbeing for all individuals in Canada;
(b)	the assurance, as nearly as possible, that essential public services of reasonable quality are available to all individuals in Canada; and
(c)	the promotion of economic development to reduce disparities in the social and economic opportunities for all individuals in Canada wherever they may live.
Part VI
Federal-Provincial Agreements
Art. 40	(1) In order to ensure a greater harmony of action
by governments, and especially in order to reduce the possibility of action that could adversely affect the preservation and development in Canada of the French language and the culture based on it, the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces or of any one or more of the Provinces may, within the limits of the powers otherwise accorded to each of them respectively by law, enter into agreements with one another concerning the manner of exercise of such powers, particularly in the fields of immigration, communications and social policy.
(2) Nothing in this Article shall be held to limit or restrict any authority conferred either before or after the coming into force of this Proclamation upon the Government of Canada or the Government of a Province to enter into agreements within the limits of the powers otherwise accorded to it by law.

[Stage Direction]
This Schedule is NOT final, subject to confirmation.
Enactments
British North America Act, 1867, 30-31 Viet., c. 3 (U.K.).
An Act to amend and continue the Act 32 and 33 Victoria chapter 3; and to establish and provide for the Government of the Province of Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Can.).
Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting British Columbia into the Union, dated the 16th day of May 1871.
British North America Act, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.), and all acts enacted under section 3 thereof.
Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Prince Edward Island into the Union, dated the 26th day of June, 1873.
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875, 38-39 Viet., c. 38 (U.K.).
Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting all British possessions and Territories in North America and islands adjacent thereto into the Union, dated the 31st day of July, 1880.
April 9, 1976
[Stage Direction]
British North America Act, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (U.K.).
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.).
Canadian Speaker (Appointment of Deputy) Act, 1895, Session 2, 59 Viet., c. 3 (U.K.).
Alberta Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 3 (Can.).
Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 42 (Can.). British North America Act, 1907, 7 Edw. VII, c. 11 (U.K.). British North America Act, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (U.K.).
British North America Act, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.).
Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (U.K.) in so far as it applies to Canada.
British North America Act, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.K.). British North America Act, 1943, 7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.). British North America Act, 1946, 10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.).
British North America Act, 1949, 12 and 13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (U.K.)
British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (U.K.).
British North America Act, R.S.C., 1952, c. 304 (Can.). British North America Act, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (U.K.).
British North America Act, 1964, 12 and 13, Eliz. II, c. 73 (U.K.).
British North America Act, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Part I, (Can.).
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 12, 1976