1976-03-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion is prompted by the incredible increase in electric power costs to the Maritime consumer and the callous attitude of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) to the plight of those who are literally being forced to sell their homes because of this punishing escalation in heating costs. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield):
That this House directs the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to make a full inquiry into the situation concerning the rapid escalation of electric heating costs to Maritime consumers, and that in the course of these investigations the premiers of the Maritime provinces be invited to give evidence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for such motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering that the financial position of the Lockheed Corporation is dangerously precarious and considering also that the risks to Canadian taxpayers are immense if the Government of Canada proceeds with its intention to purchase Lockheed Orion aircraft, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the government to cancel an earlier multimillion dollar decision to purchase the said aircraft.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent, pursuant to Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, pursuant to Standing Order 43, a motion of considerable concern to the ports and shipping communities of Canada. The prospects of the loss of the vice-president of the National Harbours Board and the more than 25 years of service to shipping interests, coupled with the impairment of the National Harbours Board capacity to function in its financial responsibilities in a legal fashion with the resulting problems this will pose for virtually all ports in Canada, give rise to the need for information. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House direct the government and particularly the Minister of Transport to forthwith table all correspondence between the Deputy Minister of Transport, the Minister of Transport and any other responsible minister and Mr. Guy Beaudet, leading up to his resignation so that the Canadian people will understand the reasons for this sudden and debilitating loss and that the minister take the first opportunity, later today, to advise this House on motions of the reasons behind this resignation, and of this government's intentions regarding further and necessary appointments to the National Harbours Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion must have unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering that the federal government, through its Department of the Environment, made in its own laboratories analyses on the mercury content of various species of fish from several areas in Quebec and that the Department of the Environment and the Quebec Department of Tourism, Fish and Game can be held responsible for not having made the results public while these indicate, according to some information, that in many cases the fish analyzed contained more than .5 ppm of methyl mercury, which is the limit beyond which the fish become unsuitable for

March 31, 1976
Oral Questions
human consumption, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House discuss this matter forthwith and order the Department of the Environment to table all relevant reports they have concerning these analyses.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Several constructive suggestions have been made by the opposition concerning the replacement for the Argus. On each occasion the minister claimed that he was considering several options. Can the minister assure us now that he has kept those options open and that next week, if the cabinet has rejected his choice and if he is still in a position of authority, he will move speedily for cabinet approval of one of the other options?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member knew the rules well enough to refrain from asking me something hypothetical, if the cabinet does something next week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister has kept his options open and I wish he would take us into his confidence to the extent of assuring the country that he intends to replace the Argus aircraft. Is the minister aware of any visits made by Reisman and Grandy to the office of General Allen, and can he inform the House of the purpose of such visits or a visit by these Lockheed consultants, bearing in mind that Reisman and Grandy and the minister have denied any lobbying type of activity or any representation made to government officials by Lockheed?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of the question, it is of course our intention to have new equipment for the Canadian armed forces and to meet our commitment to NATO. We are in the process of trying to do that in the acquisition of a long range patrol aircraft.

Until we have fully exhausted all of the attempts to achieve that which is the right purchase for the Canadian armed forces, we are not trying to look at alternatives. We spent several years looking at the alternatives and deciding on the right course.
Concerning the other question, I have said before that the relationship between the Reisman and Grandy firm and Lockheed is a matter for those two private companies. It will possibly form the foundation for discussion in a wider sense with respect to guidelines which have been suggested, but it does not in any way affect my contact with the Lockheed company, which is a direct contact between myself, my officials and that company.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-FUNCTION OF GENERAL ALLAN AS HEAD OF PROJECT TEAM
Allan Bruce McKinnon: I think it is extraordinary that the minister should answer the second part of the question in that manner. We are in no way concerned-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: -about the relationship between Reisman and Grandy and Lockheed. We are worried about the relationship between Reisman and Grandy and the Department of National Defence. Could the minister inform the House of the precise managerial function performed by General Allan vis-a-vis the representatives seconded by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Finance to the project team?


James Armstrong Richardson: General Allan is the head of the project team. It is an interdepartmental team and included in its membership are officials from other departments. I cannot at this moment name all the other officials but there were representatives of Finance, Industry, Trade and Commerce, DREE and others.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: A supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. According to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the consulting firm of Reisman and Grandy Limited was incorporated on March 26, 1975. Both Mr. Reisman and Mr. Grandy served in their official capacities as deputy ministers until April 1, 1975. Does the Acting Prime Minister not now consider that the setting up of a consulting firm by two senior public servants while still in office constitutes a serious conflict of interest, indeed, an impropriety on their part?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: I am not
aware of all the facts. However, I suggest that if the
March 31, 1976

company was not operating while they were deputy ministers there is no conflict of interest arising.


Walter David Baker: That is an important question. But according to contracts tabled by the Prime Minister yesterday, Mr. Grandy was under contract to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for a period of one month immediately following his resignation as deputy minister of the same department to advise on the "rationalization of the aerospace industry in Canada". However, Mr. Grandy did not leave the Board of Directors of de Havilland Aircraft, to which he was appointed on June 26, 1974 until December 19, 1975. Considering Mr. Grandy's range of activities, is the Acting Prime Minister now prepared to comment on the rather questionable conduct of a former deputy minister and does he not agree that a conflict of interest situation exists when consideration is given to the fact that de Havilland stood to benefit from the Lockheed contract since Lockheed agreed to promote sales of the Dash-7 if the Orion were selected?


Mitchell William Sharp: I neither agree with what the hon. gentleman has said, nor differ from it. As the Prime Minister has stated, an unprecedented situation has arisen recently. The Prime Minister feels it is a serious issue and is having it examined. Until that examination takes place, I would hope the hon. member would not attack the reputation of people like Mr. Grandy and Mr. Reisman by innuendo in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: In view of the rather cavalier attitude expressed by the Acting Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Walter David Baker: In the absence of the Prime Minister, can we assume from the answers we have just received from the hon. gentleman that he does not regard this as a serious matter with respect to the public service and are we to continue to have delay in this matter of guidelines, legislation and other measures governing the conduct of public servants in and out of office?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have just stated, the Prime Minister has said he does consider this to be a serious matter. The hon. gentleman is once again making statements in the House of Commons in order to affect the reputation of people like Mr. Reisman and Mr. Grandy. We on this side believe in justice, whatever the opposition might believe in.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Considering that it was expected that the cabinet would not be making a final decision on the Lockheed Orion purchase till its meeting tomorrow, in light of a report in
Oral Questions
today's press to the effect that a decision was made last Thursday to proceed would the minister tell the House whether or not that final decision has been taken; and in the context of answering would the minister tell the House what are the further financial considerations that the government has in mind which were referred to in the same article and which will have to be met if the government is to go ahead?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the press report is inaccurate. There has been no decision taken by cabinet. The financial arrangements are of the kind that we have discussed previously. We are working with the Canadian banks and conversations are progressing, but there has been no financial arrangement completed which I can announce at this time.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-ALLEGEDLY CONFLICTING STATEMENTS ABOUT FINANCING-POSSIBLE DISCUSSIONS WITH U S. LOAN BOARD
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister said in the House yesterday that he and his officials were aware of the full financial position of the Lockheed Corporation last fall when the negotiations were taking place. Considering that his deputy minister told a committee of this House during the past ten days that he was not aware of the provisions of the United States emergency loan guarantee act which would prohibit Lockheed from proceeding with the front-end financing, would the minister explain this apparently flat contradiction between what he says and what his deputy minister says; and, more specifically, could he tell us whether he or his officials held any discussions with the U.S. officials of the emergency loan guarantee board at the time of the negotiations, or did they just take Lockheed's word regarding their financial position in this matter?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, my officials were aware of the emergency loan guarantee board and the fact that the Lockheed company had to get approval from United States bankers before increasing their loans. This was known to my officials, but the Lockheed company indicated to us that they could overcome these impediments and that they could in fact participate in the financing of the difference between the payments required and the funds available in the Department of National Defence.


SUGGESTED BUILDING OF AIRCRAFT IN CANADA RATHER THAN PURCHASE &quot;ORION&quot;
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it is now abundantly clear that Lockheed is not able to live up to the commitment that the minister says they made, even though that has been denied by the Lockheed Corporation itself, and considering that the government of Canada owns and controls the Canadair Corporation and the de Havilland Corporation of Canada, would the minister not now make a commitment not to proceed with the Lockheed deal, and instead build the aircraft in Canada to meet the

March 31, 1976
Oral Questions
technical defence requirements, using Canadian facilities that are already under the control of the people of this country?


James Armstrong Richardson: Definitely not, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the military requirement and the commitment to NATO, there are very substantial industrial benefits to Canada arising out of this contract once it is underway. They are benefits which I think the hon. member would want to see taking place.

(Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Considering that for the last eight years Canada has had three times as many foreign financial institutions as before, is the Minister of Finance aware of that situation and can he tell the House for what reasons?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have followed the establishment of many such institutions in Canada. The Bank Act, which was passed by Parliament in 1967, included only very strict provisions governing foreign financial institutions. We are now considering amendments that could be made to the Bank Act this year, as well as the possibility of enacting wider regulations concerning these institutions.


REASON FOREIGN CREDIT GRANTING INSTITUTIONS HAVE ADVANTAGES OVER BANKS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
I understand the minister is going to introduce amendments about this, but considering that at present those foreign organizations enjoy rights that our own Canadian chartered banks do not have, for instance loans, credit, leasing or account farming, where those financial institutions may extend credit, buy back accounts or open credits which chartered banks are not allowed to do, I wish to ask the minister pursuant to which laws do those financial institutions enjoy more protection, more room for expansion, more facilities than our own Canadian banking system?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker. There are two questions to be considered here, first the matter of competition against Canadian banks, second that of permitting foreign agencies to conduct transactions in Canada.
As I have said, we shall put forward regulations in view of extending to those institutions the same restrictions Canadian institutions have to comply with. I must add there is a problem with some Canadian institutions such as caisses populaires and credit unions which operate very much like banks and which can also engage in many deals which are not open to Canadian banks. Thus we should

consider the so-called Canadian "near-banks" as well as the foreign banks operating in Canada.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General being aware of the circumstances involving the activities of an anti-terrorist squad's alleged break and entry of the premises of a Quebec newspaper in which it is suggested RCMP personnel had participated, can the Solicitor General now say to the House whether the former Solicitor General was informed in advance of this raid and, if not, who precisely authorized the participation of the RCMP in this venture?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we learned about this declaration by Mr. Samson at the trial, where it was brought to our attention, we immediately started an investigation. That investigation is still underway. We do know that there was no notice to either the Solicitor General or officials of the RCMP in Ottawa, but we will have more to announce in this respect when we have more news as a result of the investigation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I want to thank the minister for his answer, Mr. Speaker, and I understand he will give us further details on this as soon as they become available. In view of revelations made public by a committee of the United States Senate in respect of illegal activities of the FBI in the United States, can the Solicitor General assure Canadians, at least on the basis of his present knowledge of the situation, that no such activities have gone on in the past or are going on at the present time which would cause Canadians to have any concern about the activities of our federal police force?


William Warren Allmand: That is exactly the purpose of the investigation which we have undertaken and which was started as soon as this matter was brought to our attention, so I cannot answer that question right now. However, we are investigating that very point.


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very great importance which we all place on the reputation of the RCMP, I wonder whether the Solicitor General when conducting this investigation will either be able to report to the House confirmation or otherwise that the raid was carried out by an anti-terrorist squad consisting of Montreal urban police, Quebec provincial police and the RCMP and whether he will at that time indicate if he is satisfied, on the basis of his investigation, that these break-ins occurred legitimately or under the guise of state security? Would he give us that assurance when he makes that report to the House?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope to give as much information as possible. The hon. member is correct. This
March 31, 1976

raid was organized by either the Quebec provincial police or the Montreal police, and the RCMP assumed an assisting role. However, we are getting as much information as we can, and we will announce further action in the House as soon as that information is available.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if I can have his attention. On the assumption that the news reports about the departure of embassy staff from Beirut is correct, will the minister say whether it was he who ordered the closing of the embassy in Beirut or whether the action was taken by the charge d'affaires on his own initiative? If the latter is the case the minister must surely know the grounds on which it was done, because it occurs to me that while there are Canadians still in the area, the mission should be maintained.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sullivan, the charge d'affaires, and I agreed that it was appropriate at this particular time to withdraw the embassy staff. In fact, at a certain point I had given instructions that that decision should be taken at his discretion based on an assessment of the situation. Subsequently, I felt that I ought to give a direct instruction, with which the charge agreed.
The reason for the temporary withdrawal of staff is that, because of the deteriorated political situation, the embassy could not carry out any of its functions. It was virtually non-operational, as the lives of the embassy staff were in some danger. It seemed to me useless to maintain them in the area when they could not perform any function whatsoever.


Donald W. Munro: Would the minister then say what arrangements have been made to ensure that consular services continue to be available to Canadian citizens who are in the area? Has he handed them over to the Swiss authorities on this occasion as in the past?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have been urging Canadians in Lebanon to leave the country. We felt that advisable for some time and have urged them to do that, in their own interests. Whatever consular services are required will be provided, I believe, to Canadians by the British embassy.


Donald W. Munro: Chicken! Shame.


FINANCE
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It relates to the answer of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources yesterday
Oral Questions
in which he indicated that with respect to the high cost of electricity for Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island in particular, a number of proposals were still before the provinces and that some of these were still on the table. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could indicate, with respect to tomorrow's meeting with provincial ministers of finance, whether some of these proposals have been developed to the point of proposing in dollar terms to the provincial governments what forms of assistance might be provided by the federal government, and has there been any distinguishing between short-term or interim measures and long-term measures, realizing the length of time it would take to bring in some of the proposals originally suggested?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the proposals which had been put to the provinces were proposals to be operative over a longer period for the purpose of making lower cost hydro or nuclear-based power available, and indeed, the province of Prince Edward Island has gone ahead on one of these programs to set up a cable link with the mainland for this purpose.
As to the question of short-run financing of the two power utilities in those two provinces, we look forward to hearing from the ministers for those provinces. Of course, there is the difficulty that in other parts of Canada energy users, such as natural gas users on the natural gas pipeline system, also have had substantial increases and as Minister of Finance I would have to confess to being most reluctant to get into a large national subsidy program for energy users in general.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In light of the final comments of the minister, I wonder whether he could indicate whether the federal government has taken a position, or will indicate one tomorrow, with respect to the extent of the differential which will be allowed to exist, in view of its other programs attempting to equalize the hardship created. Realizing that both Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have the highest electrical cost in the country, will the minister be prepared to put forward a statement with respect to the differentiation the federal government will tolerate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I take it the hon. member means between energy rates in general and the two provinces in particular. I am not planning on making a statement of that kind, although I hope to have a very full review from the two ministers of their current situation and to get a reaction from ministers of other provinces with regard to whether national funds should be used in this way.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that there are a number of British citizens living in Canada who receive the equivalent of an

March 31, 1976
Oral Questions
old age pension from England, and in view of the fact that these pensions are not indexed and in the last six months they have lost the equivalent of $30 per month in buying power, would the minister tell the House how the negotiations with the United Kingdom on this matter are progressing and what action can be expected to alleviate this situation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity previously of expressing my regret at the refusal of the United Kingdom to adjust those pensions. The discussions are suspended at the present time because of the requirement of the United Kingdom that there be some different arrangements with Canada, which we are not in a position to provide at the present time under the existing legislation.
However, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that in the next few weeks I expect to make a statement announcing re-arrangements in our system so that we can arrive, I hope, at a satisfactory solution, not just for British immigrants, but also for immigrants from other countries in that respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In answer to an earlier question by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby the minister indicated that he and his officials are presently working with Canadian banks with regard to the difficulty in putting up front-end money. Presumably Canadian banks are unwilling to advance money without a federal government loan guarantee. Even if the U.S. loan guarantee board allows the loan to take place, is the minister asking the House to support a loan to Lockheed which Canadian banks are unwilling to undertake? Is he asking the Canadian taxpayer to undertake a risk which Canadian banks are unwilling to take on the Lockheed deal?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That does not completely answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My question is this: Is there to be no federal guarantee with regard to proposed lending by federal banks?
And in order to prevent a supplementary, with regard to his previous answer concerning industrial benefits, is the minister willing to table the studies which were done with respect to the Lockheed Orion as compared with other proposals such as refitting the Argus in terms of the

advantage to the Canadian economy of either proposal, the number of jobs which would be created and the money invested in Canada? Will he table that in the House so that we can examine the assessment which the minister has made in this matter?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question, we are not talking about a guarantee of the federal government to the Canadian banks. The arrangement is now being worded out. As I have said, if it can be completed, the details will be announced. I cannot say more about it at this time. Concerning the industrial benefits, I have already indicated that they are very substantial.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The alternative benefits.


James Armstrong Richardson: Again, they will be a matter of complete discussion and will be fully displayed once the contract has been completed. In round figures, we are talking about a guarantee of $420 million of Canadian industrial benefit. We are talking about structural components being built in Canada for 150 aeroplanes, which in round figures is another $160 million. That means some $580 million in industrial benefits. On top of that there is a "best efforts" plan which, if all goes well, could take industrial benefits to Canada up over $900 million, which is almost as much as the total cost of the contract. All of this will be spelled out once we can get the contract signed and get underway with the project.



FINANCE


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: My question is for the Minister of Finance, and I have given him notice of it. Will the minister now indicate the date on which he will present his forthcoming budget, and in an effort to remove some of the secrecy which shrouds the government's economic policy, would the minister consider a prebudget reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to allow that committee an opportunity to review the fiscal options open to Canada in this difficult economic period?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. In answer to the first part of the question, I anticipate the budget will be brought down some time in the second half of May. The actual date has not been selected as yet, but it is within that time-frame.
With regard to the suggestion of a prebudget review, I wish to make two suggestions. The first is that the economic review papers will be available at about the end of April, and I suggest that in the context of the work of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs we might have a review of the economic situation in contemplation of the budget in early May.
March 31, 1976

The second comment I would make is that I think it would be very useful if the House in general could give some consideration to the broader question as to whether the procedures that have been followed historically in this parliament and in Westminster with regard to budgets might be reviewed with the object referred to by the hon. member of having a more open scrutiny of the government's economic and fiscal planning, and either in the context of that discussion or perhaps with a special reference to the standing committee it would be of value if we could review the budget procedures and decide whether the time has not come now to make such changes in Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the context of the minister's reply, I was wondering if the minister would be willing to have his department make available to either members of this House or to a standing committee the actual forecast that they see for the economy in the coming months and years based on various assumptions with respect to alternative taxation and federal spending plans.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me that the hon. member may well be asking to a substantial degree for a preview of the budget itself, and for reason of the long standing inhibitions we have had, I would be reluctant to be put in that position. I think the far more sensible course of action, if we want to have more open procedures on the budget-and I think that is desirable-is for the House to decide what those procedures should be and then to make the necessary arrangements, rather than doing it ad hoc.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. I have given him notice of it. Is he able today to give a report on the Keith Latta case?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, I received some time ago a petition for a new trial for Keith Latta on the basis that new evidence had been discovered by way of a statement from a Mrs. McCauley which came to light after leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada had been dismissed. As I informed the hon. member the other day, we had been endeavouring through my officers to interview Mrs. McCauley but she refused to be interviewed. Consequently I have made an order, signed yesterday, to the Chief Justice of Alberta under 617(c) of the Criminal Code ordering that the Court of Appeal of Alberta or a judge thereof take the evidence of Mrs. McCauley and advise me as to whether the testimony of Mrs. McCauley could be admissible evidence in the trial of Keith Latta and ordering that counsel for the Attorney General of Alberta and for Keith Latta be permitted to appear on such conditions as the court directs.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



CUBA-SUGGESTED PROTEST OF ARMED INTERVENTION IN AFRICA

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On March 25 I requested the Prime Minister in the interests of world peace, to send a message to Premier Castro of Cuba informing him of the concern of Canadians generally over the continued participation of Cuba's 12,000 communist troops in the African conflict, and the Prime Minister promised to give consideration to my suggestion. Six days have passed since I raised that question and tension in Rhodesia and other parts of Africa has increased. So I now ask the Prime Minister: Has the government of Canada formally protested to Premier Castro the presence of Cuban troops in areas of conflict in Africa and, if so, will the Prime Minister table a copy of his government's objections in this House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe last time when I answered the question I indicated that protests have been made publicly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and personally by me, in the presence of Premier Castro, to him. I also said I did not see any advantage in sending a telegram repeating what was already known to be the Canadian policy, and having expressed it personally to him I did not consider that an expression in writing of the same idea would be likely to change his ideas very much.



CUBA-PURPOSE OF LEASING DC-8 AIRCRAFT AND TRAINING PILOTS

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My supplementary is again to the Prime Minister. Has Canada entered into arrangements with Cuba covering the leasing of DC-8 aircraft to that country and the training of Cuban pilots, and what is the purpose of these arrangements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I answered this question, I believe, in the days after I returned from Cuba and said that there have been some charges of, I believe, Air Canada planes flying to Cuba long before Cuba's involvement in Africa, but when the involvement in Africa became known we modified the agreement to make sure that these planes would not be used by Cubans outside of their territory. In so far as the training of personnel is concerned, I have no knowledge of that. I doubt if there is any, but I will look into it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Can the Prime Minister say how many Cuban pilots Canada has trained and are they being trained in Cuba or Canada and for what purpose?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member knows, there are trade and tourist relations between Cuba and Canada and charter planes are flying from Canada to Cuba and Cuban planes flying from Cuba to Canada-


An hon. Member:: And Cuban soldiers flying to Africa.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When we sell or rent a plane for money, it is quite conceivable that we also undertake to train pilots to fly these planes. If the hon. member objects to that

March 31, 1976
Oral Questions
practice, I should like to know what is the basis of his objection.



ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REASON FOR REDUCTION OF WAGE INCREASE FOR ATLANTIC SUGAR EMPLOYEES

Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister had an opportunity to inquire into the roll-back of wages at the Atlantic Sugar Refineries of Saint John and, if so, what has he discovered?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The board arrived at the conclusion that it should allow a basic increase of 8.29 per cent on the basis that the previous contract had been reopened during its lifetime. Indeed, there had been an opportunity to catch up with the increase in the consumer price index. The board has indicated that it is meeting with the company today, and is likely to meet with the union tomorrow. It is prepared to consider the question again in light of the facts that either or both of those parties can bring to its attention.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, following the question I put last week, March 24, to the Minister of Justice who gave me the following answer:
The chairman designate was appointed vice-chairman some four years ago, and apparently the matter was examined at that time by my predecessor.
As the Minister of Transport was that predecessor, I would like to ask him whether he was aware at that time that Judge Lamer, who was appointed chairman of the Law Reform Commission, had appeared in camera before Mr. Justice Real Brunet of the commission of inquiry on organized crime and whether he knows the contents of the evidence given by Judge Lamer?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a standing tradition not to address a question to a minister which relates to his previous responsibilities. I am sure my colleague will take notice of the question and report to the hon. member.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister confirm that Soviet and United States negotiators have reached basic agreement on the need for on-sight inspection of each country's nuclear test sights?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to confirm that.



FINANCE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance and I regret I have not had an opportunity to give him notice. With reference to the forthcoming meeting of finance ministers, will the minister give sympathetic consideration to the position of the Canadian Association of University Teachers that the fiscal arrangements be extended for three years. This is vital to the Atlantic provinces. Will the minister also take into consideration the inflation factor which has a great bearing not only on the College of Cape Breton but on all institutions of learning?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have had information of a similar kind from those two old friends, the hon. member for St. Boniface and the hon. member for Halifax on the same subject, bringing substantially the same message to my attention. I will take that into consideration and as the hon. member mentioned, this will be a matter for discussion in the next few days.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that new safety regulations limiting the size of carry-on baggage for commercial air flights will be uniformly enforced tomorrow-which indicates to me that safety has been sacrificed for some time-may I ask when the government will ensure that other safety rules are enforced uniformly at Department of Transport airports? For example, on the weekend of March 19 to 21 a member of the P.C. Nationals hockey team was permitted to carry on his skates at Ottawa and Halifax airports but was denied this privilege at Moncton airport. The explanation given was that Moncton airport is the headquarters for security and some officials might have been watching.


An hon. Member:: There is an empty net over there.
March 31, 1976



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State but in his absence I will direct it to the parliamentary secretary. During the 29th annual trappers' festival in The Pas, Manitoba, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation prepared a news documentary of the festival. In the opinion of The Pas town council, chamber of commerce, the festival committee, the chief and council of The Pas Indian band, as well as other northern residents, the program was malicious and deliberately distorted as to the actual facts of the festival and its bylaws. Will the minister take immediate action to have this serious charge investigated as the program made it appear to the general public that the volunteer workers of the trappers' festival were guilty of racial discrimination?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the President of the CBC that he has received a number of letters from The Pas and at the present is having discussions with CBC program management. I will take notice of the hon. member's concern and get back to him on it.



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION OF PROGRAM &quot;TWENTY-FOUR HOURS&quot;

Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Communications? The town council of The Pas has requested the CRTC to conduct an inquiry into the content of the CBC program Twenty-Four Hours that was aired on February 26, 1976 on the subject of The Pas 29th annual trappers' festival. Will the minister instruct the CRTC to establish whether the people of The Pas and the community in general have been unjustly maligned and accused?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I shall make a point of conveying the hon. member's representations to the CRTC, and I hope the hon. member will receive the answers he is looking for. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give directives to that control agency.



REASON FOR SELECTIVE VACCINATION AGAINST SWINE FLU

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the widespread anxiety and fear felt by parents because of the selective discrimination toward children who will not be vaccinated with the swine flu vaccine, may I ask the minister if it is the time factor that is involved in production which may result in a vaccine not as purified as that to which we have been accustomed in
Oral Questions
Canada? In other words, the time element might not allow sufficient purification to avoid reaction?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that the time element did not play any role at all in the consideration of the National Advisory Committee. The recommendation from the committee, which was endorsed by my department, was based purely on the adverse reaction to the vaccine that was encountered in children under 16 years of age. I would point out to the hon. member that, in a limited study in the United States, 36 per cent of children under five years of age given flu vaccine developed fevers of 103 degrees Fahrenheit or more and 10 per cent showed convulsions. It will be up to the physicians responsible for children, in view of the high risk, to decide whether the benefits of the vaccine exceed the risks involved.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why there would not be a selective classification for children and why ages 50 to 65 have been excluded for no reason that I can see?


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the children, this is a matter that will be left to the pediatrician involved. The National Advisory Committee said it was not recommended but it is up to the physician to make that decision in each instance. In other words, the advisory committee recommended against a general mass immunization of children. The committee did not recommend not giving the vaccine to people aged 50 to 65. What the committee did recommend was a certain priority order, the first priority being chronic disease cases and all people over 65; second, people of 20 to 50; and third, people between 50 and 65 and 16 and 20. Many people of 50 to 65 have antibodies from exposure to this flu between 1918 and 1930, and are less at risk than people of 20 to 50. However, these people can also get the vaccine if they are interested in receiving it.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the minister made any assessments or does he plan any investigation into the effect that rising energy costs have on economic development projects in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec and does his budget now before us for approval pose an impediment to any remedial action?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the department did indicate in the reports tabled last week that the increased cost of energy in the Atlantic region and in Quebec would create some problems for the industrial development and for the general economy in these parts of Canada. With regard to specific studies on the implications for certain industries,

March 31, 1976
Oral Questions
analyses have been initiated but we are not in a position to report on direct implications for certain types of operations. Obviously, certain types of operations are more affected than others because they require a larger consumption of electric energy.
For the second part of the question asked by the hon. member, as he is aware, budget cuts apply to all departments. It goes without saying that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is also affected because there are great needs. If more funds were available, we certainly could undertake more projects in cooperation with the private sector and provincial governments. For the time being, however, I think that we should cut our expenses and be prepared to make a better selection of projects submitted in order to maximize the return on investments.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday, referring to Mr. Grandy, the minister said that he was not sure on which committee he sat. He presumed that Mr. Grandy must have had some contact with discussions which were taking place. That was to be expected, in view of the position he held. Can the minister tell the House, precisely and definitely, if James Grandy recommended to cabinet ministers, the committee of cabinet or the project team the purchase of the Lockheed Orion?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. I pointed out that the recommendation to purchase the Lockheed Orion was made by the Department of National Defence, and made by me to cabinet.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That, precisely, is why I asked the minister the question. I want to know if James Grandy recommended the purchase of the Orion to the project team or any committee of ministers. I know that the minister himself must recommend to cabinet. Did Mr. Grandy make any recommendation to the project team?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in his capacity as deputy minister, he was not on the project team. I do not know of any recommendation he may or may not have made.



LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REQUEST FOR NAMES OF COMMITTEES OF WHICH MR. GRANDY WAS MEMBER

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in the House, and again today, the minister implied that Mr. Grandy sat on some committees. Can he tell the House precisely on which committees Mr. Grandy sat?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot. Mr. Grandy in those days was deputy minister; he was not a consultant. I think he was doing his duty as a deputy minister. I do not know all the committees on which he sat.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I intended raising certain matters as a question of privilege, but the information came to me too late and I could not give Your Honour appropriate notice. I now inform you that I intend to raise these matters tomorrow as a question of privilege. One involves disparaging remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway about members of parliament who happen to be medical doctors; the other, a charge of conflict of interest involving Tory members made by a CTV newsman, Eric Mailing. I intend to raise these matters on a question of privilege tomorrow as such comments affect the ability to do our job as members of parliament.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that ministers are given the right not to answer questions. In the interest of the safety of the air travellers of Canada, I want to be sure that the minister heard the question I asked him about air safety, and chose not to answer.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak on the same point of order, I assure the hon. member that I heard his question. It seemed to me that because of the terms in which it was couched it neither needed, nor deserved, an answer. If he had asked a serious question I would have been glad to consider it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Such arrogance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the order or direction which the Minister of Justice has given, and I do this as a courtesy to him. He referred to a witness who is material to the order, Sylvia McCauley. At one time that was her maiden name. She is now known as Sylvia Novick, sometimes known as Mr. Kovack. I hope that no technical difficulties will arise because her name is now Mrs. Novick and not McCauley, alias Le Tendress. I hope that will not affect the order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's courtesy in raising the matter. The name used is the name at the time of trial. I will check with my officers to make sure that the point creates no impediment to the matter. If it does, I shall correct the order.
March 31, 1976



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to lay on the table the fifth report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the calendar year 1975.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-430, entitled "An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (referral of reports)".


Some hon. Members:: Explain!


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, in Book I of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the commission recommended that the Commissioner of Official Languages should function as the Auditor General functions respecting government expenditures and property. Now, the Official Languages Act does not allow the House to study the reports by way of a joint committee of the House and the Senate, though the reports are tabled in both the House and the Senate. The purpose of this amendment is to allow Parliament to follow the progress made by the federal administration on every levels in the realization of the Official Languages Act's objectives of equality and justice and the participation of Francophones in every level of the federal administration.


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

Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault):
That pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 99, the petition of United Grain Growers Limited requesting the passing of an act amending its act of incorporation to increase its capital stock and for other purposes, filed after the time limit specified under Standing Order 90, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, together with the Twenty-seventh Report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, presented to the House on Tuesday March 30, 1976, for any recommendations the Committee deems advisable.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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: 3,539, 3,853, 4,088 to 4,092 inclusive, 4,098, 4,592, 4,603, 4,914, 4,915, 4,917 and 4,929.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the recent agreement on Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, is the Joint Advisory Board satisfied with the amount of public involvement and input that preceded the drafting of the agreement?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Yes.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, have measures been taken since the Plan's inception to (a) add to clam stocks (b) make better utilization of Whelk stocks (c) expand rock crab catch (d) exploit sea urchin stocks (e) exploit brown shrimp stocks (f) improve inshore catch of (i) flatfish (ii) hake (iii) mackerel (g) improve eel stocks through aquaculture techniques (h) investigate feasibility of trout hatching and farming in PEI and, if so, with what results?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) Stocks are being assessed; (b) measures have been considered, but are uneconomic at the present time; (c) stocks are being assessed and markets tested; (d) no; (e) stocks are being assessed; (f) (i) modern gear is being tested; (ii) modern gear and long lines are being tested; (iii) no; (g) no; (h) several salt water rearing stations have been established.


Mr. Orlikow: Did the National Energy Board request TransCanada Pipelines in a letter dated February 14, 1975 to (a) indicate to the Board in writing what measures are being implemented to ensure that poor construction practices do not occur in future (b) provide the Board with a statement of methods used to ensure that the actual welding and quality control practices conform to Board regulations, industry codes and company specifications (c) pay particular attention in its inspections to the area covered by the Phase I loop construction of 1971 and 1972 in its patrol of
March 31, 1976

Order Paper Questions
the pipeline system and, if so, did Trans Canada Pipelines Limited comply with the Board's request in full?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: National Energy Board reports as follows: (a), (b) and (c) Yes.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the Chairman of the National Energy Board issue a statement to the effect that charges, that sections of the Trans Canada Pipelines were unsafe, were without foundation and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did the Board request TCP to provide them with evidence of burn throughs and slag inclusions in certain welds in the pipeline and, if so, on what date?
3.	Did the Board receive the evidence it requested from TCP and, if so, on what date?


Maurice Brydon Foster: National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. Yes, on February 10, 1976.
2.	Yes, on January 28, 1976.
3.	The Board received radiographs of 6 welds from CTV on February 17, 1976 and an incomplete assessment of 82 other welds prepared by an unidentified person. The Board is conducting its own evaluation of this material.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Do National Energy Board regulations permit (a) hollow bead (b) slag inclusion (c) excess penetration (d) burn through defects in welds in gas pipeline construction?
2.	If such defects are present in the welds of a gas pipeline what is required of the pipeline company by the Board?
3.	Has the Board ever ordered a company to correct any such defects?


Maurice Brydon Foster: National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. Yes, to the extent permitted in code CSA Z184. There is no defect defined as excess penetration.
2.	A defect which violates code CSA Z184 detected during construction is required to be removed by the pipeline company. Previously undetected defects which are revealed by pressure testing after completion of the pipeline, but before placing it in service, are required to be corrected. Defects subsequently discovered are required to be corrected if they affect safety.
3.	Yes.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the National Energy Board issue licences to Trans Canada Pipelines Limited for the Phase I loop constructed in Northern Ontario in 1971-72 and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did the Board carry out inspection and testing to make sure that the pipeline met its standards for safety before granting the licence and (a) if so, in what manner (b) if not, what evidence of safety was submitted by Trans Canada Pipelines Limited?

3.	Did the National Energy Board take steps to confirm the reliability of the evidence of safety submitted by Trans Canada Pipelines Limited and, if so, what were they?


Maurice Brydon Foster: National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. Yes, the National Energy Board issued during the years 1971-72 a total of three certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity dated February 16, 1971, May 11, 1971 and May 4, 1972.
Note: The Board issues certificates in accordance with the National Energy Board Act to approve facilities rather than licences as stated in the question.
2.	The Board established requirements for the "testing of oil and gas pipelines" on September 17, 1965. Leave to Open Orders were issued with respect to the pipeline constructed under authority of the three certificates referred to above on submission of evidence by Trans Canada Pipelines acceptable to the Board that these requirements had been met. Leave to Open Orders authorize the placing in-service of designated sections of pipeline. Prior to issuance of Leave to Open Orders a 24 hour hydrostatic pressure test at 125% of working pressure was conducted by Trans Canada, the results of which were checked in detail by the Board. It was the Board's practice at that time to conduct field inspections on a selected basis. In this particular case there was no field inspection by Board staff but the Board carefully checked all evidence submitted by Trans Canada including the affidavits of professional engineers attesting to the safety and integrity of the pipeline.
3.	Yes, detailed engineering test data which included pressure and temperature charts, dead-weight pressure readings and temperature readings as well as other information was carefully assessed by the Board. In addition Trans Canada filed with the Board affidavits from a professional engineer attesting to the safety of each individual portion of the pipeline. It is to be noted that this line has operated at full working pressure for approximately four years without any failures or significant operating incidents.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Are qualified inspectors of pipelines employed by the National Energy Board to carry out its statutory responsibilities to assure the safety of pipeline operations and, if so, how many?
2.	How many were employed in each of the past ten years?


Maurice Brydon Foster: National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. Yes, a total of 15.
2. 1966, 4; 1967, 4; 1968, 4; 1969, 5; 1970, 5; 1971, 6; 1972, 6; 1973, 9; 1974, 11; 1975, 16; 1976, 15.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Have field inspectors competent to inspect (a) radiographic evidence (b) hydro-static evidence of pipeline weld quality been employed
March 31, 1976

by the National Energy Board in (i) 1970 (ii) 1971 (iii) 1972 (iv) 1973 (v) 1974 (vi) 1975 and, if so, how many?
2.	Did the Board receive from Trans Canada Pipelines copies of correspondence dated June 7, 1972 and June 2, 1972 between them and Mr. Tom Arnesen relating to the quality of welding performed on a Trans Canada Pipeline and, if so (a) on what date was such correspondence received (b) what action was taken by the Board on the letters?


Maurice Brydon Foster: National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. Yes, the Board employs field inspectors who have the ability to identify welding problems and who are competent to inspect and assess hydrostatic testing. Moreover the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has particular expertise in radiography and metallurgy plus the laboratory facilities to conduct any necessary analysis. The Board has used these services to supplement the findings of its field inspection staff when required. The following table indicates the Board's staff members who were available for inspection duties from 1970 to 1975 inclusive.
Year	Personnel
1970	5
1971	6
1972	6
1973	9
1974	11
1975	16
The CSA Z184 requires gas pipeline companies to use radiography in only 15% of field welds. Accordingly this code requirement acts principally as a check on the quality of workmanship. Because radiographic techniques were not sensitive enough to reproducibly find dangerous defects, the Board relied on the pressure test as the principle basis for operating authority for pipelines to be operated. Although the quality of radiography has increased markedly since 1972, it will continue to be the Board's policy to rely principally on the hydrostatic pressure tests to assure itself that a gas pipeline may be safely operated. This hydrostatic test requires a minimum pressure of 125 per cent of maximum allowable operating pressure to be held for a minimum of 24 hours.
2. Yes, copies of these two letters were forwarded by Trans Canada to the Board in June 1972. Similar letters were received by the Board in July 1973. All these letters related primarily to a contractual dispute between the two parties. The Board does not normally involve itself in this type of dispute. The potential significance of the very general references to welding quality and safety made in this correspondence was not apparent until a copy of Mr. Arnesen's report dated December 3, 1973 to the Prime Minister was received by the Board in March 1974. At that time an investigation of Mr. Arnesen's technical concerns was undertaken.


Mr. Sym.es: 1. Since the establishment of the Anti-Inflation Board in October 1975, until the resumption of full operations in the forest products industry, what was the dollar value decline of Canadian exports?
Order Paper Questions
2. What was the loss, in dollars, of tax revenue from exports during the same period of time?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. In the period from November 1975, the first full month in which the Antiinflation Board was functioning, to January 1976, the latest month for which data are available, the exports of the forest industries amounted to $1,066 million. This compares with $1,304 million in the comparable period in 1974-75, and with $1,232 million in 1973-74. The level of exports in this period was affected adversely by labour disputes in many sections of the pulp and paper industry and also by weak demand for pulp and paper as well as lumber and panel products. However it is not possible to quantify the impact of these various factors with any precision.
2. This information is not available.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Was a new investment proposal made by Internote Canada Limited, wholly owned by Internote Financial Holdings of Switzerland, owned and controlled by Paoli Bontempi of Italy to establish a plant in Granby, Quebec and, if so, what is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
2.	Who are the principal shareholders of Paoli Bontempi of Italy?
3.	Does Paoli Bontempi of Italy control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by percent of control and value?
4.	What will be the effect of the establishment of this plant on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada?
5.	How many persons will be employed once the new plant is established?
6.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
7.	How will the establishment of this plant be (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the new plant?
8.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the transaction?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as the
Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: a new investment proposal was made for Internote Canada Ltd., wholly-owned by Internote Financial Holdings of Switzerland, to establish a plant in Granby, Quebec. The proposal was approved by the Governor in Council on February 26, 1976 (P.C. 1976-435). All information with respect to a person, business or proposed business obtained in the course of the administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act is prlvileged and may not be released except as provided in section 14 of that Act.

March 31, 1976
Order Paper Questions DASH-7 PROGRAM


Mr. Mazankowski: How much has the government paid and promised to de Havilland and its subcontractors for the development and production of the DASH-7?


Marcel-Claude Roy: The information being requested with respect to the amount of government development support for the DHC-7 aircraft provided to de Havilland and its subcontractors is "commercial confidential" and cannot be made public. In overall terms the total government support for development of the DHC-7 aircraft and engines at the end of the project will be in the order of $115 million of which approximately $80 million will have been spent by March 31, 1976. With respect to DHC-7 production the government has approved a loan to de Havilland for DHC-7 rate tooling in the amount of approximately $4 million.


Mr. Mazankowski: Has the government paid any money to firms other than de Havilland for STOL development and, if (a) to whom (b) in what amount?


Marcel-Claude Roy: STOL development funding to companies other than de Havilland Aircraft is as follows during the 15 year period ending March 31, 1976: Canadair, $22,147,000; Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada $11,802,502. The companies subcontracted portions of these amounts to other Canadian companies for the development and production of associated components, equipment and systems. A further $496,103 was provided to a number of Canadian avionics companies for STOL systems development work. No further breakdown of this figure is possible because of commercial confidentiality considerations.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Was the Minister of Transport and members of the staff of the Department invited to participate in and attend the special International Air Safety Symposium held in Ottawa on March 2 and 3, 1976 and, if so, in each case, what part did they play in the Symposium?
2.	Did the Minister and an official of the Department or some other government official give instructions that members of the staff of the Department were not to participate in or attend the Symposium?
3.	Is the Minister prepared to accept full and complete responsibility for any accidents which may occur as a result of the policy of adopting bilingualism in air traffic control service?
4.	Is such policy only applicable in the Province of Quebec and, if not, how many positions in Moncton have been designated bilingual and what (a) are the positions (b) is or will be the cost to provide language training and the cost of replacing the members of the staff during absence on language training?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes, I addressed the Symposium on the first morning to explain the Government's policy in phasing in the use of the French language in air traffic services in Quebec.
2. Yes, I directed that my officials should not attend because they were previously committed to participate in

the National Civil Aviation Security Conference being held on the same days as the Symposium.
3.	I am prepared to accept full responsibility for the safety certification of the procedures being used or to be developed for bilingual air-ground communication, but I cannot be held accountable for accidents therein anymore than I am for other aviation accidents.
4.	Yes.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1965 to date, did the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources subsidize mining exploration in the Constituency of Temiscamingue and, if so, what was the aggregate amount?
2.	In each case (a) what was the purpose (b) who was the recipient (c) what was the amount (d) what was the year (e) what was the result?


Maurice Brydon Foster: 1. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has not subsidized any mining exploration program in the constituency of Temiscamingue since 1965. The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act provided some funds to gold mines in the area but there was no provision for exploration in the EGMA program.
2. Not applicable.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,704 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Since 1968, for each (a) nationality (b) port involved, how many visits have been made to Eastern Canadian ports by foreign fishing fleets?
2.	In each case, how much money (a) was earned for the ports and local businesses (b) is estimated to have been earned for Canada?
Return tabled.
March 31, 1976



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No, 84-Mr. Lawrence:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies or surveys of radiation in the vicinity of Port Hope, Ontario, conducted by or for the Atomic Energy Control Board, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, or any other branch or agency of the government which show radiation to be in excess of the accepted levels for public safety, and the exact locations at which these excessive levels were found.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 1976, the two supporting memoranda on which the July 29, 1975, summary report issued by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was based, were tabled. In addition, the Minister of National Defence tabled a report respecting radiation levels in the Port Hope area. I would, therefore, request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Lawrence:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
COPY OF CONTRACT WITH LOCKHEED AND AGREED FORMULA Motion No. 97-Mr. McKinnon:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the proposed contract between Lockheed Corporation of Burbank, California and the Government of Canada for the purchase by Canada of eighteen Long Range Patrol Aircraft, including the agreed formula as outlined at page 11617 of Hansard, dated March 9, 1976.


Mr. Walter Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is deemed inappropriate to table before this House papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract until the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded. I would, therefore, request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Transferred for debate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Lockheed Corporation



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   NATIONAL DEFENCE PURCHASE OF &quot;ORION&quot; AIRCRAFT FROM LOCKHEED CORPORATION

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the serious possibility that the cabinet will decide tomorrow to proceed with the $1 billion order of Orion aircraft from the Lockheed Corporation in spite of the fact that the financial position of this corporation is dangerously precarious and therefore could lead to a major financial loss for the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 26, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has given the Chair the required notice. I wish to make an observation, first, concerning the importance of the matter.
There is no question that the matter is of considerable importance and is certainly worthy of consideration and discussion. However, the conditions that are contained in Standing Order 26 are quite specific. The language is worth repeating, particularly with regard to the description in that Standing Order of the urgency that is involved. That, of course, is one of the primary questions which the Chair must decide. The Standing Order reads:
Leave to make a motion lor the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration must be asked immediately before the calling of government orders.
The operative words, therefore, are "requiring urgent consideration". The matter is certainly specific and important, as required by the rule. The question the Chair has to decide is: Does the matter require urgent consideration and, if so, why? In that respect, it is the language of the motion which would indicate the urgency, because it states:
-for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the serious possibility that the cabinet will decide tomorrow to proceed with the $1 billion order of Orion aircraft from the Lockheed Corporation.
The matter of urgency, therefore, is the fact that the cabinet may decide and, if so, would decide tomorrow to proceed with that order. The first concern I have, although this is not the ground for the decision, is that the matter has been before the House for some time. It has now, because of the possibility of a decision tomorrow, acquired some urgency. It seems to me that the matter has had urgency all along. It has been before the House. The minister has been before the standing committee with his estimates. I have not, of course, examined the record there, but I would be very surprised if hon. members had not availed themselves of the opportunity to question the minister before the standing committee on this matter. The minister has certainly been questioned in the House.
The concern that I express, and again I say it is not the basis for the decision because I can foresee the possibility in which these circumstances might exist and still a debate
12328

March 31, 1976
Measures Against Crime
ought to be ordered under Standing Order 26, is simply this: the matter has been before the House, having first been raised, if my recollection is correct, before Christmas. It has been before the House for several weeks. It has perhaps acquired more urgency as it has gone along. Is it possible, on the eve of an important development in respect of that matter, to bring in a motion and say that that important development which takes place tomorrow now gives it an urgency it did not have two or three weeks ago and, therefore, the House ought to set aside this evening to discuss it? Again I say it is a concern that I express but not one upon which I base the decision. The one upon which I base the decision is the fact that the matter may be decided by cabinet tomorrow.
I think hon. members realize that if the Chair once accepts that as a definition of the urgency it would qualify as a subject for acceptance pursuant to Standing Order 26, this could cause a problem since, presumably, every matter which is on the regular cabinet a problem agenda for Thursday morning ought to be, and I am sure all members agree, of serious concern- otherwise it would not be there in the first place. Since it is fairly well known that cabinet meets every Thursday morning, if the Chair once accepts an imminent decision by cabinet on Thursday morning as being proper grounds for coming within the rules, then every Wednesday the Chair will have the decision of selecting which items in the forthcoming cabinet agenda ought to qualify for a Wednesday evening discussion.
Certainly, that may be a very desirable practice in the House in terms of relevant debate, but it does not seem to me that was the intention of Standing Order 26 in those matters. Therefore, for that consideration I decline at this moment, in the circumstances, to grant the debate under Standing Order 26.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, last night when we adjourned to the other place for royal assent in order to get moneys to pay our civil servants I was speaking about the matter of gun control. I think it can be said that few issues have raised more interest throughout the country, including capital punishment. I have received a much greater number of letters on this issue than on capital punishment. For example, I have here a petition

from the village of Gilbert Plains, in my constituency. It reads:
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the legislation presently before the House imposing undue restrictions upon responsible firearm owners.
When one considers it is signed by 500 people out of a population of 1,000 it shows how important it is. Therefore, I hope there will not be any curtailment of debate on this issue. It is of great importance, particularly to those who live in rural areas. When you examine the legislation you find it will do little, if anything, to reduce the use of guns in crime. However, it will seriously inconvenience sportsmen, legitimate gun owners. In fact, it may make them more susceptible to disturbances in our society.
I mentioned previously that the taking away of guns from the general population could result in loss of the militia effect that has been a time-honoured vehicle for the presentation of liberties in western countries in times past. I have read that in Switzerland there is no restrictive legislation whatever to curb the general use of firearms of any kind, but in no country of Europe is the use of firearm more general. Every able-bodied male is required by law to possess and know how to use military rifles. In addition, he can own all the pistols he likes, contrary to our law at present, and rifle and pistol shooting is universally indulged in by all classes of people. Yet is is conceded that in Switzerland crimes of violence are extremely rare, which obviously indicates that the use of firearms does not promote crimes of violence unless the conditions are conducive to violence.
Regarding crimes of murder, the statistics are most interesting. Based on the Canadian experience, it seems fair to conclude that most murders involving firearms take place in a domestic environment. Most murders are not ingeniously planned, but occur on the spur of the moment. The people involved are not chronic criminals, but husbands, wives, neighbours and friends. I understand that of the 272 shootings in Canada in 1974, 97 took place in a domestic environment-husband and wife-111 took place in a quasi-domestic involvement, and of the balance, 19 were committed during the commission of a crime and 45 remained unresolved.
Because the majority of murders in Canada and the United States have occurred among families, an attempt has been made to classify these so-called intimate murders. It is interesting to note the results of one study by L. A. Rotenberg and R. L. Sodeff which appeared in two journals, "Corrective Psychiatry" and "The Journal of Social Therapy (1970)." The two authors and scientists isolated two distinct groups, an anti-social group and a schizoid group. The anti-social group was the most stable, and while those belonging to it kept guns readily at hand, whenever they committed a crime the weapons were not used unless that crime was contested.
Study of the schizoid group showed that a gun formed an integral part of unpredictable action. It might be possible to weed out the use of guns by those in the schizoid group by a requirement for registration backed by psychiatric investigation. The legislation before us is, I suggest, based on the presumption that somehow the person who issued
March 31, 1976

the licences will be able to spot people with schizoid personalities or anti-social tendencies and prevent their having access to weapons, thus lessening the incidence of homicide. It is difficult to see how this could be done in practice without denying registration ter a large portion of the population.
Turning to the other group involved in the study I have just mentioned, the researchers found that before committing a crime there was nothing in their behaviour that would enable them to be distinguished from others. They conformed to normal patterns of behaviour to the extent that they would obviously be able to acquire a firearm through a licensing agency without a great deal of trouble. In other words, a screening program would be almost impossible to administer. Irrational behaviour among members of the latter group mentioned is almost impossible to spot.
Some people have maintained that access to a gun is a prerequisite to crime. But shootings occur in the case of only half the murders committed in Canada, and if guns are unobtainable it is probable that most of the murders which involved shooting would have been committed in some other way. I would point out that, as things stand, Canada's gun laws are already quite restrictive. The premise that even stricter gun laws would reduce the crime rate should be seriously questioned. It seems obvious to me that stricter gun laws will not do much to prevent violent crime. Indeed, they will likely have only a negative impact on the crime rate. For such measures to be effective, it would be necessary to abolish the use of guns completely, and it is doubtful that this could ever be enforced.
There has been some discussion about the right of individuals to be in a position to defend themselves. I would remind hon. members that a police force cannot be in all places at all times. Only a relatively small number of our citizens can be involved in actual police work. When Hitler came to power in Germany, he took away the guns from his people and whenever he occupied a country he took guns away from its population. My information is that the U.S.S.R. private citizens have no freedom to own guns. Even the few who are able to use guns to hunt for food, for example, must return them directly after use to the local equivalent of commissar or military post.
On the other hand, there is the attitude adopted in Switzerland where every able-bodied man is expected to be proficient in the use of guns and where there is extensive private ownership of guns. Surely, there is a moral in this. It is that totalitarian countries largely restrict the use of guns to the police force and the military, while democracies rely on a different approach, one which encourages citizens to use guns and to own them. I submit that in any discussion about the use of guns, this aspect should be considered.
If it is suggested that the restriction of gun ownership would prevent or minimize death by guns, why not consider the case of automobiles, motor cycles and snowmobiles? All these vehicles cause many times the number of deaths that guns do. The way to prevent such deaths would obviously be to ban these machines altogether, but no government would suggest doing so, simply because they are too much a part of modern living.
Measures Against Crime
Turning to the bill itself, let me say there is obviously much to be desired. The role to be played by the local registrar interests me somewhat. Presumably, he will be expected to spot the individual of unsound mind, one who might have a tendency to act irrationally, or one who is known or suspected to be a criminal. This I suggest, is a very exacting and onerous assignment. As usual, the registrar will fall between two stools; either he will be too lenient and give out licences freely, destroying the value of the licence and the purpose to which the bill is directed, or, if he is too strict, problems will be created the other way.
Take the case of a man known to have a criminal record, for instance. It is assumed that such an individual has paid his debt to society, tha he has become a reformed citizen and is consequently entitled to the rights enjoyed by all other citizens. I can well imagine a registrar who takes his work seriously, phoning the local police office to find out whether or not a particular individual has a police record or whether he is known to the police as being a person of unsound mind. In the event, the local police as being a force might well become the ultimate arbiter in deciding whether or not an individual should receive a licence.
Then, again, the provision that an applicant must find two individuals who will permit their names to be used as a guarantee that the individual seeking a licence is of sound mind, and so on, gives rise to some reflection. The legislation describes these guarantors in clause 106.1 (3)(c) as "members of a class or classes of person from time to time prescribed by the regulations." They must indicate that they have known the applicant for at least two years, that they have read the application and that to the best of their knowledge and belief there is no reason to believe the applicant is unfit to be in possession of firearms or ammunition. This is much more complex than the situation regarding passports. Furthermore, the local registrar of guns will certainly become a local czar.
There is another aspect of the bill that is not clear and which, presumably, will be dealt with by regulation. I refer to whether or not automatic shotguns or rifles will fall into the restricted class. I have said that fully half the rifles and shotguns that are now sold have an automatic capability, even though, generally speaking, for sporting purposes or bird and game shooting the number of shots that can be fired at any one time is a maximum of three. Many millions of these guns will not become restricted weapons.
Concern has been expressed by gun clubs, and members of clubs dedicated to shooting, that the new regulations will tend to put these clubs out of business. Even if the legislation does not do this, it will certainly make their life more complicated, and understandably they are quite upset and unhappy over this legislation. So often these people are community-minded and in most cases theirs is a worthy activity in society. Another group of individuals that seems to be hard hit by this law is the gun collectors who by and large, so far as I am aware, have not contributed to the crime statistics of this country in any way. Gun collecting seems to be a hobby with many people, a sort of link with the past, and in this day and age it is sometimes used as a hedge against inflation. I am told that the United Kingdom has reasonably sound regulations regarding people who collect guns as a hobby.
21804- 19l/2

March 31, 1976
Measures Against Crime
There has also been comment about the provisions of the bill removing the 90-day notification clause in regard to wiretapping, generally viewed as a serious infringement of personal rights. Also, in addition to the existing provision relating to search and seizure under the authority of a warrant, the following amendment is proposed to section 105(2):
Where, with respect to any person, a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is not desirable in the interest of safety of that person, or of other persons, that that person should have in his possession, custody or control any firearm or other offensive weapon or any ammunition or explosive substance and that the danger to the safety of that person or other persons is such that to proceed by way of an application under subsection (1) would be impracticable, the peace officer may without warrant search for and seize any firearm or other offensive weapon or any ammunition or explosive substance in the possession, custody or control of that person.
This seems to be a very far reaching amendment and places in jeopardy the whole requirement that a warrant is necessary to search a home. The present limitation has been eliminated, namely, the assumption that an offence has been or is being committed as justification for entering premises other than a dwelling-house without a warrant. If approved, this amendment would provide blanket authority for any peace officer to enter any premises, including a dwelling-house, without a warrant, ostensibly to search for and seize firearms and ammunition. Hence, this gun legislation may well be opening up the way to a greater threat to civil liberties than generally thought. I think that this part of the bill contains extremely dangerous provisions and must be looked at very carefully. It seems to me that if this provision is accepted, any policeman who wanted an excuse to enter any building would now have one.
There are also many other interesting clauses in the bill; for example, the provision relating to the carrying of a weapon to a public meeting. Will the farmer who normally carries a weapon in his light truck be guilty of breaking the law when he attends, say, a 4-H club meeting? It would appear that he will. Again, the owner of a weapon who may have for some reason lent another person his gun will, it seems to me, incur severe penalties. I believe this point was made last night by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin). I suggest that a person who is normally a law-abiding citizen could incur such a penalty inadvertently.
If I may bring my remarks on gun control to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the view expressed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, that cessation of the sale of firearms will not remove them from the hands of those who would do violence. This association came down heavily against gun registration as being unrealistic and administratively unworkable. It does not seem likely to me that an ownership licence will be any more effective than registering a gun. In fact, I think it would be less effective. An ownership would have to be renewed every five years, whereas presumably there is no need to re-register a gun unless the owner wants to sell or dispose of it.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that if the population at large has guns, more homicides will be inevitable. As I have pointed out previously, most murders are committed in the home and many of them would have occurred even without the licensing or registration of firearms. Only if all guns were prohibited would there be a satisfactory or signifi-

cant drop in the number of gun murders. Various countries around the world, such as Sweden and Switzerland, have a high incidence of gun competence and gun ownership, and these countries are freer of crime than most other countries. In other words, there is nothing to indicate any correlation between the use of guns and the incidence of crime.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, may I reiterate my unhappy feeling about this omnibus bill that gun control has been introduced along with four or five other quite desirable amendments that would contribute, I believe substantially, to the fight against crime. I refer to the provisions relating to parole and those providing that provinces can institute crime inquiries, and so on. It is most important that the House allow the bill to go to committee, in accordance with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), so we can separate the very controversial gun control provisions from the rest of the bill which is generally desirable. In that way better legislation might eventuate. I am sure we will find that, as presently drafted, the legislation will be of no value whatever in curtailing homicides or crimes committed with the use of a gun. In effect, the bill will be detrimental to law-abiding citizens in this country.


Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on this proposed legislation in order to reply to one or two of the comments made from the other side of the House, to indicate one or two areas of concern I have about the proposed legislation and also to state my fundamental and strong support for the basic principles of the bill. It is important legislation, and I hope the House will quickly finish its work at this particular stage so we can get the bill to committee where suggestions for change can be made and considered.
The first argument I should like to comment on is one that is frequently made by members on the other side and which, indeed, has been made again by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), namely, that controls do not work, that the attempt through this kind of legislative proposal to diminish deaths which take place through the use of a gun will not be effective. I would suggest to the hon. member that there is one relatively simple fact which throws doubt upon this argument. We know, for instance, that while controls applied to long-guns in Canada are similar to those in the United States, and the incidence of crime when using these guns is roughly parallel, there are much more rigorous controls in relation to hand-guns in Canada than in the United States.
As a result of these controls there is a rather dramatic difference in the possession of hand-guns in Canada and in the incidence of firearm incidents. I believe there are roughly 700,000 handguns in the possession of Canadians, while the number in the United States is 35 million-a ratio of 50 to 1 in comparison to the population, which is 10 to 1; and there is a much lower accident incidence in the use of hand-guns in Canada than in the United States. It is obvious that the stricter controls we have in Canada have been effective in persuading Canadians not to seek to hold hand-guns. Obviously, since 700,000 do hold them, those who feel a real, genuine need to have them do have them,
March 31, 1976

but those who have only a marginal need to have them in their possession, having to meet relatively difficult requirements, have decided not to do so. It seems clear to me from this one example that we have a situation in which gun controls have been effective in diminishing the number of guns within society and the number of incidents in which these guns have been used for violence.
The basis of the hon. member's argument-I hope I do him no injustice in paraphrasing it-is, basically, that if someone really wants to kill another person, he will do so whether he uses a gun or some other means. It may be that those who are determined to kill one of their fellow human beings will find a method for doing so. The fact is that the large number of deaths that occur in Canada as a result of gun use do not take place in situations where there is that degree of premeditation. There are accidental deaths in Canada-about 100 a year-and there are suicides in Canada of about 2,500 a year. There are a large number of deaths that take place, not in situations of great premeditation but as a result of family disputes, periods of passion and sudden anger. There are many deaths which occur because of the mental unbalance, perhaps temporary, of individuals who have access to guns and are able to use them without that kind of long, deep reflection which, say, an organized, contract killer might use.
I think it is significant that of the number of deaths which occur in Canada through the use of guns, about half stem from domestic, family incidents or incidents where close friends are involved, and not in situations where there is a long period of deep-seated determination to do away with another person. They occur in situations of passion that come upon a person suddenly who finds a gun available with which to execute the victim. That is the kind of death which these controls are likely to diminish.
Undoubtedly, murders will still take place in Canada. The fact, now, is that almost half the deaths that take place in Canada occur as a result of gun shootings. It is also the fact that the larger proportion of these could be avoided since they take place in situations of spontaneous passion or anger. This is the kind of incident to which this legislation is directed.
The hon. member for Dauphin cited the case of the automobile. I cannot understand his argument. He said, "Look at the automobile. A large number of deaths take place each year as a result of its use". Is he suggesting, therefore, that we should ban the use of the automobile? Then he dropped the argument at that point. Surely the relevant question is, would he seriously suggest that we do away with licensing of automobile drivers, and would we do away with licensing of automobiles in order to make sure they are in working order and are not a danger to those driving on our roads? Surely, he would not.
Surely, the parallel with automobiles is this: the automo-hile can be a dangerous instrument, and because it is a dangerous instrument we set tests for those who wish to use it to ensure that they are capable of using it wisely and properly, and we set tests to ensure that the mechanism of the automobile is safe to be on our highways. It is exactly that kind of test that we are proposing to impose in relation to guns, to ensure that those who wish to use them are licensed properly, and to ensure that they will be used safely and wisely and do not fall into the hands of those
Measures Against Crime
who may use them unwisely as a result of emotional disturbance, as a result of accidents or as a result of circumstances of passion that suddenly arise. This is exactly what we are applying. We are saying, here is an instrument that is capable of great danger and its use in our society should be controlled through regulation to make sure it is only the responsible who use them. That is what this legislation says.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why members of the opposition are not able to accept that simple argument and support the principle of the legislation on these grounds. They may argue as they may wish in committee as to the details of how these regulations should be properly applied, but the principle is clear: an instrument dangerous to the person using it, and dangerous to the rest of society, should be hedged around with restrictions and controls that ensure as best we can that such instruments will be used prudently and sagely and not recklessly or irresponsibly.
I am anxious that this legislation should go before the committee. I share some of the concerns expressed by the other side that perhaps the provisions which relate to automatic weapons in the hands of collectors which would, under the proposals, become prohibited, may be too severe. We might, in committee, wish to look carefully at how we can enable collectors to maintain automatic weapons as a collection with the automatic weapon denatured, if you like, from its ability to cause damage. That is a matter which might well be considered in committee.
I should like to turn briefly to a rather different aspect of the legislation respecting which I wish to indicate to the House one or two concerns I have, in the hope that these concerns may result in changes the committee will decide to make. The first of these refers to clause 10 of the legislation which proposes to repeal section 178.23 of the Criminal Code. This is the section which ensures at present that notice will be given in 90 days to those who have been subjected to legally authorized wiretapping after the termination of the wiretap. The proposal in the legislation is to repeal that section so there will no longer be an onus upon police officers and those charged with the administration of justice to inform people who have been subject to wiretapping of what has taken place. I can understand some of the concerns the police may have, that in making a very serious investigation, when they are not able to produce immediate results or results in the short term, the provision as it now exists in the code will cause harm by alerting those people, who may very well be guilty of very serious offences, of the fact that they are under scrutiny and surveillance.
I think very few of us in this House would be happy to accept a proposal under which a police officer or member of a governmental administration would be able to open and examine the mail coming to a citizen's home, close it and send on the message, never even informing, if it were an acceptable practice at all, the individual that he was under this kind of surveillance. We in this House would not accept that. We would regard it as an overzealous intrusion into privacy no matter what the motivation by which it was undertaken.
I suggest the same principle applies to wiretapping. It is a very severe intrusion upon privacy, which I think most

March 31, 1976
Measures Against Crime
of us would consider to be going too far. I would regret very much if we did not wish to ensure, through some sort of mechanism, that those who have been subject to such surveillance be made aware of it, particularly because I believe that without some sort of notice provision it would become much easier for illegal wiretaps to be conducted and not brought to the attention of the authorities.
It is my hope that the committee, when it is conducting its consideration, will look carefully at the proposition in clause 10 to repeal what I think is an important safeguard in the present legislation. It may be that the committee will be able to come up with other safeguards that meet my concern effectively. It may be the committee will decide to return to the original 90-day provision. It may be, for instance, that when applying to the judge, the judge could determine the period within which the citizen under surveillance must be informed of the fact. I suppose these questions of detail should not be disucssed at this stage, but I hope the committee will look very seriously into the concerns I have expressed.
With relation to the wiretapping provisions, my second concern is the proposal in clause 8 to amend section 178.16 of the Criminal Code. The effect of this amendment is to enable indirect evidence, found through an illegal wiretap, to be used in court cases. I can understand the frustration of police officers, coming across evidence which would establish clearly that a person has been guilty of great crime that that evidence is not admissible because it has been obtained as a result, not directly but as a result of further investigatory work, of information brought to their attention through an illegal wiretap. However, I do not see how one can get around the basic problem that if such evidence is to be admissible, it obviously provides an incentive to police authorities to engage in illegal wiretaps knowing that, at worst, the information they are able to collect through them would be available to the court and would be brought to bear against those they wish to prosecute.
There is no incentive in this provision to persuade police officers not to undertake that kind of illegal activity, and because of the nature of wiretapping it is extremely difficult for illegal wiretaps successfully to be brought to a conclusion. Perhaps hon. members could inform me of some, but I do not know of any prosecution or charge which has been made in relation to police officers using illegal wiretaps. I think it would be extremely difficult to bring such charges. Under those circumstances, I think we should do what we can to restrict the incentive for police officers to undertake illegal operations in a way which can lead directly to further information which will help them in the course of their work.
Perhaps I would say, parenthetically, that I do not wish my remarks to be interpreted as an indication that I believe police forces regularly, or as a matter of course, undertake such illegal wiretaps. That is not my argument at all. I have great respect for our police forces. I have on occasion gone out with the police in Toronto in their work at night, and I have tremendous respect for them. That is not my point. My point is that I think it would be wrong to establish, through this legislation, any incentive which might encourage police officers to undertake illegal actions

in the knowledge that such illegal actions might be helpful to them in the prosecution of their work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Those are my concerns, and I hold those concerns even though I support very strongly the principles of this legislation and wish to see them implemented. Therefore, I am hopeful that the House will finish its discussions at this stage as quickly as possible so we can get the matter into committee and consider some of these concerns and others raised by hon. members. I hope the committee will see fit to make some changes to take into account the kinds of concerns I have expressed. I hope we will be able to bring this legislation back into the House quickly, have it passed and operating effectively in order to assist in the provision of peace and security for the Canadian public.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members of the House have listened to this debate, or if they listened to any of the discussions which have taken place in the House or in the committee which dealt with matters of justice in recent years, they would have heard calls for toughening up our laws and calls for dealing in a much more strict way with criminals who break the law. One cannot help being struck by the difference in views' expressed by many members of parliament who are-and I recognize this-expressing the views of their constituents. However, le us compare those views with the views of every expert group, every expert committee and every expert commission which has been appointed by federal or provincial governments in recent years.
I have before me the latest report of the Law Reform Commission which was published just a week or ten days ago, entitled "Our Criminal Law". The Law Reform Commission is a very distinguished group headed by Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt of the Ontario Supreme Court. It has been studying the questions of criminal law for, I think, five years. I want to put on record just a couple of sentences from its report, as follows:
In theory the law aims to promote humanity. In practice it is frequently itself inhuman. Canada, it has been shown, is one of the harshest western countries when it comes to use of prison sentences. Many of the terms imposed are too long, half the people in prison should never be there, and so many are in jail that those few needing real care and attention cannot get it. Indeed the whole system resembles a vast machines sucking people in one end, spewing them out the other and then sucking them back in again-a self-generating mechanism, certainly not a human process.
Then it says something which so many have said in this country, both in parliament and outside:
For all the respect we pay to justice and equality, we still have one law for the rich and another for the poor.
Why is there this fundamental cleavage, not between do-gooders and the ordinary citizens but between experts such as those who served on the Law Reform Commission or those who served on an earlier committee headed by Mr. Justice Ouimet? Why that difference? It seems to me there are several reasons for that: first, because there has been in Canada, as in every other country, both in the eastern world and the western world, a sharp increase in crime in recent year; second, I think it is because every year or two the public reads a report from one of these commissions
March 31, 1976

with recommendations that we should have a different system, that we should have fewer people in jail, that we should have more probation and parole, and that we should segregate first offenders from hardened criminals. The public assumes that because the commissions have recommended these things, we have in fact done them, and that since we have done these things and since crime continues to increase, these recommendations have not worked and will not work. The public is misinformed; the public misunderstands. We have never done most of the things which have been recommended by these committees and commissions which governments have appointed.
Our prisons are overcrowded because our parole officers carry case loads which are so big that they cannot possibly do a good job or as a good a job as they should do in deciding who should get parole and who should not. We do not segregate first offenders who if they were not sent to jail would probably never commit a second crime. We have not really examined the problem of how to deal with the native people who are in our jails and who in western Canada at least make up substantially more than 50 per cent of the jail population. I think with regard to women the figure is probably over 60 per cent of the jail population. We have not really examined the reasons native people commit crimes for which they are sent to jail, almost all of which crimes are associated with the misuse of alcohol. We have not really thought through a method of dealing with native offenders as compared with white offenders who are in jail for entirely different reasons.
It is for all these reasons that our system is not working, and because our system is not working people are asking for tougher and tougher sentencing, which has not worked in the past and which will not work in the future. We need to change our whole approach, and in the two bills introduced-this one and the one dealing with capital punishment-there is no indication that the government has any real intention of changing its approach in a fundamental way other than just changing words and phrases. Because I believe that is so, I do not foresee any real reduction in the number of people who commit crimes and the number of people who will be sent to jail in the near future.
I want to spend some time dealing with two or three specific matters dealt with in this bill. First of all, there is the question of gun control. Let me begin by saying that I doubt if there is a member in the House who has had less experience in the use of guns than I have. So I make it clear that I do not speak as an expert. I speak because it is an important question, and because such a large number of my constituents have written, telephoned or seen me to discuss this matter, mostly to register their objection to the proposal which the government is making. I find it interesting that I am frequently advised by the people who speak to me on these two questions that I should vote for capital punishment-although I disagree with capital punishment-because 80 per cent or more of the people shown in the Gallup poll have been for capital punishment.
People who urge me to vote against the proposals to license guns do not tell me that 83 per cent of the people in the Gallup poll have indicated that they are for some form of gun registration. I will vote for this bill on second reading, and for the licensing of guns, although I believe a
Measures Against Crime
large number of questions must be answered in committee before I can be certain that I will vote for this measure on third reading. I will vote for it because I cannot help but be appalled by the large, continuing increase in the number of deaths and injuries as a result of the deliberate or acciden-tial use of guns. Figures given to us in the material prepared by the government are pretty startling. Murders committed with firearms increased from 178 in 1970 to 272 in 1974. There are now probably 10 million long-guns such as rifles and shotguns in the possession of Canadian citizens. More and more guns have been used in the commission of violent crimes. I am appalled by those figures, and if licensing of guns will tend to reduce their use, I have to vote for this bill.
I listened very carefully to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts) who spoke before me. He put on the record some very interesting statistics showing that the number of deaths as the result of the use of hand-guns is very much lower in Canada than it is in the United States. He said that this was because-and I have to agree with him-for years we have required the registration of handguns and therefore we have a much smaller percentage of hand-guns in the possession of Canadian citizens than they have in the United States.
I will not repeat his statistics, but I want to put on the record the comments of the chief of police in Detroit whom I heard on a CBC radio program some ten years ago. Ten years ago Detroit was, as it is now, the murder city in the United States. There are more murders committed in Detroit in one year than there are in all of Canada. The chief of police said, during that radio interview some ten years ago, that thousands of people in Detroit are buying revolvers because they say they want to protect themselves and their families in case there is a race riot. He said that they had had very few race riots and even less deaths in Detroit, but people have the guns. What happens is that some Saturday night, two couples are playing bridge and have had too much to drink: the wife makes a particularly bad bid, and the husband-who in the old days, before he had a gun, might have reached over and hit her across the chin-gets angry, takes the gun and shoots and kills her. That is what is happening with the use of guns in Detroit.
We have avoided that in Canada, and I hope we can avoid it by what they have had in the United States, that is, by licensing guns which it is proposed should be licensed, and therefore cutting down on the use of guns, particularly the use of guns by people who have had no experience and who do not know how to use them. When I say that, I automatically exclude people who belong to game and fish clubs and people who belong to gun clubs. I am not worried about them, because they have had experience and training in the use of guns. Having said I intend to vote for the basic principle of this bill, and particularly this section, I want to raise a number of questions which I think are quite legitimate and have to be answered either in this debate or in committee before I can feel 100 per cent certain that I can vote for the bill on third reading.
I am thankful to the game and fish clubs and to the gun clubs which have raised questions and objections to this bill. Many of their objections and questions are quite legitimate-I will put some on the record-but many, I believe, are exaggerated and have been brought forward by

March 31, 1976
Measures Against Crime
their misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the bill. What are some of the questions being raised? I am concerned about the difficulties which native people, and indeed all people living in isolated areas of the Northwest Territories, northern Ontario, northern Quebec and northern British Columbia, will have in getting a licence. It will not be difficult-at least, it will be easy-for someone who lives in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Ottawa or Toronto to go to whoever is the licensing authority and get a licence, but for people who live 100 or 200 miles from the licensing authority, who may be an RCMP officer or some other appointee, I think it may be difficult. I want an explanation of how this system will work.
I see some difficulties, also, with the question of age. I am not concerned about the age of people living in the cities, because those who use guns do so largely for sport or recreation. But this law is not good enough for the people I have spoken about who live in the isolated and underdeveloped areas, farm people who have to live with various predators such as skunks, gophers and weasels. You cannot say that such person must be 16, 18 or over 14. I think we must have a good deal of discussion about this question.
I am also concerned about the question of guarantors. It may be easy to get two guarantors in a city, but I think that for somebody living on the edge of the Arctic ocean it may be difficult to get two guarantors. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of the cost of licensing. I am sure the minister will not be surprised to hear that I have discussed this question with the attorney general of Manitoba. He said, "Here is another illustration of Ottawa passing legislation which we will have to administer. We have had discussions with the police, and they estimate that in terms of manpower it will cost them $30 to $40 to get character references and issue a licence to an applicant." That is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker.
Before we vote on this bill, I think the minister should indicate what discussions his department has had with the provinces and who will be responsible for the costs, who will pay the bill. A farm family with three or four people likely to be using a gun would face a stiff licensing bill. At committee stage it is likely that some of my colleagues will put forward a suggestion that provision be made for a mandatory training program for all new applicants for licences, not those who already have a hunting licence or target-shooting licence. Wherever possible, such a mandatory training program should be made available under the auspices of fish and game or wildlife organizations. I intend to vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker, and for this provision but these are the questions that I believe still have to be asked.
I should like, now, to put on the record some of the criticisms advanced by FARO-the Firearms for Responsible Ownership organization. I have a document which was circulated at a large meeting in Winnipeg, and a reply prepared by the Department of the Attorney General. The latter document states on page 1:
Everyone is responsible for his safe handling and storing of firearms and ammunition. If someone steals your gun and misuses it-you are responsible.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe this is the intention of the bill. I asked the Department of the Solicitor General for comments, and they sent me a seven-page written reply which I have forwarded to the interested parties. This reply is prepared by the co-ordinator of the working group on gun control, Mr. R. D. Gualtieri. The following is what he says on page 1:
Responsibility for safe handling, storage, etc.-the proposed S.99(2) in the bill does not create criminal or civil liability of the owner for the misuse of a weapon by a thief. It simply makes the careless or unsafe use, carriage, handling or storage of a firearm or ammunition a criminal offence, for which an offender may be liable to up to five years' imprisonment.
I will not go over all the clauses, but the next one says that without a warrant the police can search your house and seize firearms and ammunition. Mr. Speaker, the bill does say that, but it has some very clear limitations. Here is the explanation provided for me which I want to put on the record, again quoting from the letter I received, page 2:
Search and seizure without warrant-Under normal circumstances, police may search anyone or anywhere (except in a private house), and make seizures, only when they believe on reasonable grounds that a firearm-related offence is being, or has been, committed (S.103(1). In addition in cases of immediate or imminent danger to the safety of any person, police will be empowered to seize a weapon from the possession of a person, where it would be impractical to wait to apply for a warrant for this purpose (S.105(2). Both of these conditions must be met however. The bill does not, therefore, give unrestricted powers of search and seizure to the police, as suggested by FARO's summary.
I am sure that with my record in this House in regard to questions of police and justice no one would suspect that I would favour giving indiscriminate power to the police. I put this on the record to indicate that there are many questions which have been asked and not answered to the satisfaction of a large number of people in the country.
I now want to deal with the proposals with regard to dangerous offenders. When I read the material and listen to the speeches of the minister and compare them with the recommendations made in the Ouimet committee report of 1969, I have to say to the government that, while it seems to be following the committee recommendations to some extent, the committee's main recommendations with regard to the provision of adequate facilities and the need for study of things being done in this field have not been implemented. Let me put on record a few of the recommendations of the Ouimet committee. At page 257 the report reads:
The committee recommends that the present habitual offender legislation and dangerous sexual offender legislation be repealed and replaced by dangerous offender legislation.
That is what we seem to be doing. At page 262 it says:
The committee, therefore, recommends the passing of an indeterminate sentence upon persons found to be dangerous offenders, subject to the safeguards hereinafter discussed.
Again, the proposals before us seems to be directed to that end. At the bottom of page 262, this appears:
The committee recommends that the proposed dangerous offender legislation, if enacted, provide in addition to an automatic yearly assessment and review by the Parole Board, that a person sentenced to preventive detention as a dangerous offender be entitled to have a hearing every three years before a superior, county or district court judge or judge of the court of sessions of the peace, for the purpose of determining whether he should be further detained or his sentence should be terminated if he has been released on parole.
March 31, 1976

Then page 264 of the report reads:
The committee recommends that government grants be made for research devoted to the development of new and improved methods for identifying and treating the dangerous offender.
At page 265 the report reads:
The committee recommends that further research be undertaken to determine the most appropriate way in which to deal with the persistent petty offender.
As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, most of these recommendations were not followed, and now we are starting again with insufficient knowledge of how to deal with the question. Our institutions are overcrowded. Some people who have worked in and with the institutions and regional centres, such as the one at Abbotsford, tell me the institutions are not working as they were intended to work. The original idea was to segregate special cases such as dangerous offenders. It was intended that prisoners sentenced to long terms for serious crimes could be sent to a centre like Abbotsford where they could receive treatment which, hopefully, would change them and keep them from committing such crimes in the future. But apparently, partly because of tremendous overcrowding, acute cases are being sent to Abbotsford, and I presume other centres, for short terms in order to get the kind of treatment which should be available to them in the institutions in which they are already incarcerated.
Because prisoners are sent to an institution a long way from home, away from friends and family, the chance of successful treatment is lessened. Also, because the staff turnover in institutions like Abbotsford is high, rehabilitation programs are not successful. We have not been successful because we have not studied the problem in the way the Ouimet committee suggested in 1969. Various royal commissions have studied this question. We now know that a certain percentage of prisoners, about 5 per cent, are hopeless cases. On release they will revert quickly to old habits and commite further crimes. If that is so, and I have no reason to doubt it, then instead of labelling these criminals as dangerous offenders and putting them away for a long time, why not recognize them for what they are, criminals incapable of change? Therefore, I submit we should build preventive detention centres where prisoners serving long sentences, say from 20 and 25 years, will be humanely treated during their incarceration. So far we have not done the necessary research and studies to enable us effectively to segregate dangerous from not dangerous offenders. So far our attempts to identify these people and sentence them accordingly have been inadequate.
Lastly, and briefly, let me talk about wiretapping. Obviously, the majority government now wants to do what it could not do as a minority government. In the last parliament, the then minister of justice, who is now Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), wanted to give the police the wide powers being proposed in this bill. He was unable to do it because New Democrats, Conservatives and even Liberals opposed him. I remember that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and others were against the proposal, as were some government backbenchers who believe in civil liberties and the right of Canadians to privacy. Not even they could swallow the proposals of the then minister of
Measures Against Crime
justice. Now it is different. Now the government has a majority.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: The Senate tried to do what the then minister of justice could not do.


David Orlikow: As my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) reminds me, the Senate tried to do what the then minister of justice could not persuade the House of Commons to do. We let the Senate know it could not overrule the House of Commons. Now the government proposes, again, essentially what the then minister of justice proposed. The bill provides, first, that in certain circumstances the police shall be allowed to use, at trial, illegally obtained evidence; second, that persons whose conversations had been intercepted need not be notified of the surveillance during surveillance; and third, that the priod of surveillance is to be extended from the original proposal. We oppose this. There is no evidence showing the police lack powers to control crime. There is no evidence showing wiretapping is a successful tool. According to my information, evidence in only 18 of 550 authorized wiretapping cases was actually used at trial. By itself, wiretapping does not do the job and can be a dangerous weapon. I remind hon. members of the powerful testimony the former attorney general of the United States, Ramsay Clark, gave before the justice committee several years ago.
I shall now mention something that happened in my city a few weeks ago. The police and the provincial attorney general's department of my province had reason to believe that a certain judge in Winnipeg was doing things which were either illegal or improper. The police went to the attorney general for authorization to conduct electronic surveillance of that judge's conversations. They did this quite properly under the law. I am not criticizing the police. I note a Conservative member shaking his finger at me as if suggesting that I ought not to be saying these things. I tell him that I have discussed what I am about to say with the attorney general of Manitoba and have his permission to speak.
The attorney general signed the application giving permission to wiretap telephones at any address used by the particular judge under suspicion. As I say, the attorney general gave that authority. The police, who were not acting illegally, put the tap on the trunkline which went into the office of the particular judge whose conversations were to be wiretapped. Unfortunately, that telephone line was part of the trunkline serving two other judges. Under the present law, the police were required to notify the other two judges of the electronic surveillance. They learned that the police had listened to their telephone conversations, and lo and behold were annoyed, to say the least-even flabbergasted. One was so upset that he wanted to move his office, which I can well understand. He did not want anyone listening to his telephone conversations.
Wiretapping is a potent instrument and a dangerous tool. It should be used with great care only in exceptional circumstances. I presume we do not want the police to break the law. Surely we should encourage the police to obey the law and act in accordance with the law. Therefore, allowing the police to use illegally obtained evidence, or to wiretap indiscriminately, is a mistake. In all cases
12336
March 31, 1976

Measures Against Crime
involving surveillance of a citizen we should require the police to act honestly. I am not sure this new law will encourage them to act openly. It does not require the police to notify people that they are being surveyed while the surveillance is continuing; they are to be notified only at the conclusion. The previous intention of a limited period and immediate notification at the end of that period is being abandoned. We consider this to be a real danger to our civil liberties. We therefore intend to propose amendments on this and other clauses.
Having said that, I and most of our group if not all, will support this bill on second reading. In closing, I want to say that it is our intention to be very tough. We will ask all the questions which we believe need to be asked in connection with all clauses of this bill before agreeing to its passage at report stage or on third reading.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-83. I find it very amusing, listening to some members on the other side and members to my left. They go on at great length citing their misgivings and apprehensions about the bill, but still intend to vote in favour of it. I refer particularly to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who has just resumed his seat. I hope that gun owners in his area read his speech. I am sure they will not be very impressed with the vigour with which he has pursued his argument on behalf of gun owners in Canada.
This bill touches on a number of sections of the Criminal Code. I want to deal primarily with the section pertaining to firearms and other offensive weapons. This has commonly been referred to as the gun control part of the legislation. It has precipitated the amendment advanced on behalf of our party by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). As my colleague stated in his remarks, this particular section of the bill dealing with gun control constitutes the major part of this legislation. There are very few other measures that have been brought before this House that have generated the type and volume of mail which this subject has.
In reading the mail, one finds that the criticism is harsh and the representations are numerous. It is only natural for a member of parliament such as myself, representing a constituency and having received many objections in the form of letters and conversations, to speak on this bill. There are serious misgivings and fears about this bill. I might say that the misgivings and fears advanced to me by my constituents are those which I happen to share. Quite frankly, I can speak on this subject matter in a very objective fashion. I do not own a gun, I have never owned a gun, and I do not ever intend to own a gun. I really have no axe to grind because of my position as a gun owner. I simply want to place on record some of the feelings which

I share, feelings about which gun owners throughout Canada have become apprehensive.
Naturally, there are some obvious concerns in the mind of the public with regard to the ownership of guns, their handling, storage, safety, and so on. While there is a general disposition on the part of the public to demand some tightening up and the establishment of control and safety standards, in respect of this bill and to the extent it meets those objectives I must say categorically that I find this piece of legislation exceedingly harsh and very offensive.
I agree with the hon. member for Calgary North who stated we should have a separate debate on gun control and another debate on the assortment of other Criminal Code amendments. To the extent it has been possible under our rules of procedure, the hon. member for Calgary North has moved an amendment on behalf of our party which indeed contains the spirit and intent of that desire. I congratulate him on his motion and commend it to the House for support.
There are-and this is where many of us find ourselves in a bit of a dilemma-a number of provisions contained in Bill C-83 with which I am sympathetic, such as the sections which deal with dangerous offenders, parole, the special crime inquiry section and crime prevention. I think it is fair to say that we on this side of the House have been advocating some of these measures in response to the government in its constant erosion of our laws and the disregard for the obedience and respect of the laws of our land, and in general the over-all gentle stance which has characterized this government in its approach to dealing with crime and the criminal element.
The government now says it recognizes the need for some tightening up. It recognizes that the public is demanding measures which will improve their protection and security. However, in addressing itself to the problem, to a large extent the measures which are being advanced are victimizing the law-abiding and peace-loving citizens of this country. One might be able to accept that if we were convinced that it will indeed reduce crime and violence in this country, or if we could get at the root causes of crime and deal firmly and harshly with criminals and the criminal element in our society. However-and I am sorry to say this-I am not convinced that this piece of legislation will achieve that objective.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This bill will do very little to deter the criminal. The section dealing with gun control is the government's response to the emotion and hysteria of a bewildered 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.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I submit we should be asking ourselves questions such as: What about the impact of television, the violence and filth that we see on our screens day after day and night after night? What about the dramatization and sensationalism of murder, robbing, mugging, rape and other violence on television? A recent survey conduct-
March 31, 1976

ed in the city of Edmonton revealed that more than 25 shows which were dished up on a weekend by Edmonton TV stations depicted violence.


An hon. Member:: Not on the French channel.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Maybe we should turn on the French channel. Is it not reasonable to assume that those who are emotionally disturbed, immature or very impressionable could be adversely affected by this professionally-packaged violence? Are not our school children prime targets for the glamour of violence? Another survey conducted in a Canadian city revealed that for 72 per cent of the students, in a general way crime had a major impact on their activities and, furthermore, they felt that crime and violence on our television screens should be reduced. The overwhelming majority have confirmed that.
What about the problem of alcohol in our society, and the problem of drugs? They are not mentioned in this piece of legislation. Surely these are integral components of the crime picture, but no mention is made of them in this bill, not even in the slick promotional propaganda which these two ministers have packaged for the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have been presented with a professional public relations document, and a vast number of the people in this country are simply not buying it. I might go further and say that a lot of the contents of the emotional material are little more than emotional fluff. Moreover, in my view the material is based on biased statistics.
What else is at issue? In the minds of many Canadians there is a genuine feeling of cynicism, a feeling of mistrust about the motive of the government and exactly where it intends to lead us.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We are all worried.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Law-abiding citizens are concerned that their rights and freedoms are being whittled away under the simplistic guise of peace and security measures. Why this overkill? Are there sinister motives? Many people are apprehensive. Many are asking this very question. The bill is introduced by a government which has adopted the stance of coddling the criminal. Now we are presented with a package of legislation which would suddenly transpose this attitude into a policy of dealing more harshly with criminals. The government is listening to public opinion in the area of gun control, but not in the area of capital punishment. It disregards the polls which have been taken throughout the country in that connection. There is a glaring inconsistency in the government's approach.
The public is not buying this legislation, and rightly so. The bill addresses itself, not to the criminal but to the law-abiding citizen. In my view, the government is, and will continue to be, an administration which extends its compassion, not to the victim but to the criminal. It is the victims of crime who are being punished by this govern-
Measures Against Crime
ment, not the criminals. It is the innocent, the law-abiding citizens who will be the victims of this bill.
What is the issue before Canadians today? It is the issue of law and order, and to the extent that this package of legislation addresses itself to peace and order I suggest it is a misnomer. We require positive steps to establish an environment which will create greater respect for the law. Looking at the bill before us, we have to ask ourselves: Will it result in a greater respect for the law? The answer to that question is "No". Indeed, I suggest it will do exactly the opposite.
The latest edition of the report of the Law Reform Commission has been quoted from on many occasions during this debate. Reading through it, one finds such phrases as "The more laws, the more offenders", and "Assembly lines of dime-store justice". On another page the report says "our picture of the criminal justice system bears little resemblance to reality". In my view, those phrases are an adequate description of the legislation before us.
Furthermore, I believe the application of this gun control legislation would be weighted unfairly against the rural population, against the youth of our country and against our native population. In this connection I should like to place on record a letter which was forwarded to the editor of the St. Paul Journal and appeared in the edition of March 24. I should like to quote a section of the letter which outlines the apprehensions felt by the Metis Association of Alberta. The letter is signed by the association's president, Mr. Ambrose J. Laboucane. It reads in part:
This type of legislation violates our rights as native people and disregards the democratic process that we, the people of this country, are so proud of and fought so dearly for in two world wars.
I personally feel our government is violating the God-given laws that have been effective for centuries.
I say, further, that the bill will not be enforced fairly in the case of the poor and the underprivileged. Again, we need only look at the document which was tabled here last week, "Our Criminal Law," to find confirmation of this impression.
In practice, the penalty (for crimes) often depends not on the nature of the crime but on the person who commits it. Our prison population contains a quite unrepresentative proportion of poor, of disadvantaged and of native offenders. The richer you are, the better your chance of getting away with something. Is it that rich men make the laws and so what rich men do is not a crime but simply shrewd business practice? Or is it that position and wealth protect the rich against intervention?
I see the section on gun laws being enforced along lines which bear the least resistance. The easy targets will be those who are underprivileged and unfamiliar with the law. I see the prospect of harassment levelled against innocent 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, one which is based upon sheer lunacy. This is a form of "innocent guilt" which is unjust, unnecessary and inexpedient.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There are areas where steps could legitimately be taken with respect to the use of firearms; for example, the development and administration of an
21804-20V2

Measures Against Crime
effective safety program, the development of high standards of proficiency among sportsmen and hunters. In these respects, legitimate sportsmen organizations throughout the country have never been recognized; their recommendations have never been acknowledged; 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 work, the minister and the government will have to go to these people and work with them.
For years, fish and game associations across Canada have been asking for some of compulsory, hunter training program or for some form of selective screening process. This limited objective was rejected by provincial government on the basis that it was overly cumbersome and costly. The federal government now comes along and unilaterally imposes a universal licensing and/or registration program that will be cumbersome, costly and complicated.
As far as the use of an offensive weapon while committing an indictable offense is concerned, penalties should be severe and they should be enforced. There can be no doubt, so far as I am concerned, that the courts and enforcement agencies have been overly lenient in this particular area. A general tightening up with respect to the issuance of permits for restricted weapons and the broadening of the prohibited class is a step in the right direction, providing the laws are enforced. However, here again we see the powers that are granted to the governor in council as being overly excessive and broad.
So while we have some very serious misgivings about this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are areas where the government could act, and act in a co-operative fashion, with the hunters, gun owners and sportsmen, and indeed with the provinces. However, to impose the universal licensing and/or registration program that is advanced in this bill is, to me, nothing more than overkill.
We have to ask ourselves this question, Mr. Speaker: Will this law be effective in reducing deaths caused by guns through accident, murder or suicide? I say the answer is "No". As a matter of fact, I think a fair case could be made for saying that if the Criminal Code as it now stands were properly enforced, it would perhaps do more to minimize death and injury caused by firearms than the draconian measures advanced in this legislation.
For example, we have in this country a registration and licensing program for the owners of hand guns. The statistics that have been provided by the minister relating to gun control indicate that as of February, 1976, some 644,481 hand guns were registered and that some 50,000 hand guns were probably in circulation which were not registered. It is interesting to note that in spite of this provision- something that this bill sets out to do for all guns-the incidence of murder involving the use of hand guns has increased by 115 per cent over the past five years. That is a record which is clearly indicated on page 14 of the report.
Further, Mr. Speaker, one notes that armed robbery involving the use of hand guns has increased by 65 per cent over the last five years in Canada-two robberies out of three involve the use of hand guns-while armed robbery involving the use of long-guns has increased by only 17 per cent. What this means is that in spite of the registration and licensing provisions, the incidence of murder is increasing dramatically and the incidence of armed robbery has increased dramatically over the past five years.
So we have to ask ourselves: Why, then, are we imposing a licensing and/or registration system on the owners of long-guns in Canada? Why are they made the scapegoats? Where are the statistics to prove that the licensing and/or registration of shotguns and rifles will reduce murders and robberies in this country?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the hon. member a question. He asked how registration of long guns would have some effect. I would be delighted if he could point out to me any provision in the bill that proposes the registration of long guns and rifles.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister asked that question. Section 106(1) is very broad in nature. By government order in council, the powers can be extended to require registration of all guns. I appreciate the fact that the minister is listening to me, but I did expressly say in my comments the licensing and/or registration provisions, and I used that option.
Let me move on to suicides, where the same thing applies. These figures are bandied around in the packaging and merchandising of this gun control legislation, but is the minister really saying that by imposing a licensing and/or registration system for all firearms we are going to reduce the suicide rate in this country? He cannot seriously defend this legislation on that ground. If so, let him bring forth the statistics. If it can be proven to me that by imposing a licensing and/or registration system for all guns he could have saved one or more of the 1,021 lives lost through suicide committed by using a gun, we might be sympathetic and go along with his argument. I believe that by using the suicide statistics in trying to sell this package, the whole question of gun control becomes distorted, cloudy and confused. I submit that suicide has very little relevance to gun control as it applies to the licensing provisions.
Before this debate is concluded, Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to prove unequivocally that licensing as proposed in this bill will either prevent or impede crimes of murder, robbery or any other form of violent crime involving the use of a firearm. I challenge him to prove to the Canadian people that guns will be kept out of the hands of criminals under the provisions of this legislation. I have yet to see any statistical proof, any projection at all, that does in fact lend some credence to this proposition.
Many members have cited statistics relating to other states and countries. The city of New York, for example, possesses some of the most restrictive firearms legislation on the North American continent, yet has one of the highest crime rates. It has been proven conclusively that registration is an expensive government exercise in futility. In Massachusetts, harsh gun law have been adopted which have proven useless in reducing crime. The Washington

March 31, 1976

Post described the statute as the toughest gun control law in the nation which mandates an automatic one-year prison sentence for carrying a hand-gun without a licence, but says, however, that it has had little effect.
I could cite other statistics. But surely the minister and his colleagues are not so naive as to visualize criminals licensing and registering their weapons before committing a felony. The only people who will comply with this law are the law-abiding citizens of this nation, the very people for whom this legislation is totally and absolutely unnecessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There are better ways of getting to the core of the criminal problem than using a sledgehammer on the innocent, law-abiding gun owner of this country. Surely the hunters, target-shooters and gun collectors are not criminals, Mr. Speaker. 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, and to that extent I welcome the provisions of this bill. The legitimate gun owner, in this particular case, should not be made the scapegoat.
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 in 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. Had these episodes not involved the use of guns, they 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, a bomb, a sledgehammer, a knife or the fist. That is the core of the problem, and that is the problem to which this bill fails to address itself.
Having regard to accidental shootings, surely there is some need for improvement in this area such as by upgrading educational safety programs. I endorse that, as I endorse the idea of a uniform, countrywide mechanism for the training and testing of individuals in safe gun-handling practices. This should be mandatory, but it is not referred to in this bill and there is nothing in the bill that suggests this will be done. I repeat that what we need is stricter enforcement of existing laws, and less coddling of criminals. Stricter gun laws will not cut crime, but proper enforcement of existing laws will.
Let me deal now for a few minutes with the legislation as it relates to civil rights. The legislation itself constitutes a further encroachment upon the basic individual rights and civil liberties of Canadians. This has been the hallmark of this administration. We have had a form of press censorship, which was debated in the House in the last month or so. We have had a wage and price control program which started out to be selective and has now become universal, with the threat of becoming permanent. We have seen a move away from the free market economy. We have more and more government intervention, more regi-
Measures Against Crime
mentation, more inspectors and more statistics. We have growing confrontation between business and government, government and labour, and we have an increasing tendency toward individual Canadians becoming numbers rather than individuals. We have more licences, more permits, more bureaucracy, and more cost. We are told that the gun registration program in New York costs roughly $100 per person.


An hon. Member:: Where did you find that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Those are the statistics. The way this government accelerates its spending, it will probably be more than that here. Civil liberties and individual rights can no longer be policies of the federal Liberal party. A lifelong Liberal, namely, Don Klein of Edmonton-and we have one or two in Alberta-wrote in the Edmonton Journal as follows:
Such legislation is not gun control. It is people control, and an invasion of civil liberties directed only at law-abiding citizens.


Mitchell William Sharp: Just like the licensing of the automobile.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We can go into that during another safety debate. Mr. Klein goes on to state:
This endless barrage of useless legislation such as the proposed gun controls, which we are faced with every day of our lives, is breeding a profound disrespect for the law in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Another man, Mr. E. L. Willson from Tofield, Alberta-I am not sure what his political persuasion is-writes the following-


An hon. Member:: And where is that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If you would get out to that great province, I could take you around and show you where Tofield is. Mr. Willson writes:
It is my unshakeable belief that if this restrictive piece of gun legislation is enacted the government of Canada will have
1)	Created in one stroke the most expensive and unenforceable law ever written into the books
2)	Created a monstrous new society of criminals (former law-abiding citizens who would balk at unfair legislation)
3)	Made a giant step towards the creation of a totalitarian state, after all what easier country to take over than a disarmed one.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been described in various ways. It has been referred to as misleading, ludicrous, useless, irritating, senseless, asinine, pitiful, expensive, stunning, and worthless. Those are not my adjectives; they are an assortment of descriptions I have collected from a number of articles appearing in the press on this subject. I submit to you that all these descriptions are suitable and adequate.
This piece of legislation will create a massive bureaucratic network for the government, the police, the dealer and the public. It will cost millions of dollars to administer, but will do nothing to curb crime and violence. Edmonton city police staff inspector Mitchell has said that Canada's gun laws are already stringent and that our law books are already full of such statutes. He states:
We are taking guns away from people every day and the next day they are back on the street, they are treated too damn lenient.

Measures Against Crime
He goes on to state, as to people being compelled to safeguard guns, that all these safeguards do is to stop an honest man. The crook will get at the guns even if they are chained down in the house. I think that drives home the point very dramatically-and this is what a staff inspector of one of our major police forces in Canada had to say. As far as the requirement of a licence to continue ownership of the privately owned six million long-runs in Canada is concerned, it will do nothing to prevent their use by criminals. Section 106.1, to which I referred in answer to the minister, places in the hands of petty officials broad arbitrary powers. The imposition of regulations to provide such additional information and documentation at the whim of the local registrar can only result in undue harassment. The fees for licensing can be exorbitant, given the intended principle of self-financing of the bureaucracy. We can see that a prohibitive licence fee could be tantamount to an outright prohibition of firearms to the average person. We will end up with only the rich being able to afford the luxury of owning a gun.
The broad scope of powers granted to the governor in council is not clearly defined to prevent back door regulations which could prescribe total gun registration and alter restricted classes of weapons to the prohibited class. This is possible under the broad, sweeping powers granted under this bill to the governor in council. The interpretation of "ammunition" is so broad as to include anything from a lead fishing-weight to a spent cartridge to an atom bomb. Surely that has to be an asinine description. If it is possible for me to drive down the street in my automobile with a spent cartridge in my car and subjected to being charged under this law, surely this bill is overextending in its powers.
The sections dealing with legal responsibility arising from the handling and storage of firearms is something else not clearly defined. Whose judgment will be used, and what constitutes a "careless manner" or "reasonable precaution"? Will this interpretation be left to the regulations, or will it be left to the discretion of the police officer? The same thing applies to section 101.
I think the appeal procedures are overly complex and do not really constitute an effective procedure. I believe that the major thrust of any firearms legislation should address itself to two things: first, to restricting the use of firearms by criminals; second, to developing proficiency standards which will ensure the safe handling of firearms by good citizens in order to prevent harm and injury to themselves as well as to their fellow citizens. This bill fails to include training, testing and certification. It fails to include any sort of proficiency or competence test. Therefore, one can only assume that this bill represents something less than a genuine desire to get at the real root of the problem but is content to mislead the public into believing that severe regulations and restrictions imposed upon gun owners will.
The gun legislation, as it is drawn up, is the product of a government removed from reality, perhaps assisted and abetted by idealistic philosophies of overeducated bureaucrats who insist on imposing their views and solutions upon what they see as an uninformed and irrational public. This condescending approach does not serve the purpose of curbing crime and violence. As a matter of fact, it does not

serve the best interests of society. If it is the sincere wish of this government to curb crime and violence, then I submit it should reconsider the proposals in this gun legislation and withdraw them or send this bill to committee for study before proceeding with second reading. That is the thrust of our motion and I support it as wholeheartedly and vigorously as I possibly can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the beginning that it is very nice to see you back in the chair. Since I first came into the House of Commons I have always had great respect for the way in which you have handled yourself and for the patience and fairness you have shown. For these attributes, I think this House owes you a great deal of thanks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, obviously we are at the second reading stage and we are studying the principle enunciated in Bill C-83, an Act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime.
Until now, the debate has given rise to many comments from concerned organizations particularly about some clauses of the bill and it has also allowed many hon. members to give their point of view.
I receive-and I suppose that goes for many members as well-comments from my constituents and organizations concerned about gun control. The provisions of Bill C-83 are aimed indeed at eliminating those who would misuse guns and at controlling the availability of guns without unfairly prejudicing the legitimate use of guns for hunting or other sports. Those provisions are also aimed at applying severe standards governing the safe and proper use of those guns. They are mainly aimed at diminishing the use of guns in criminal acts by imposing more severe and new penalties.
So it is important that all groups concerned be heard before the House pass this legislation. It is at the committee stage, Mr. Speaker, when this bill will be studied in depth, that associations, organizations and individuals will make an important contribution. They will be able to voice their reservations and offer positive suggestions concerning amendments.

When the bill is studied in committee we can hear some of these organizations, such as the Ontario Arms Collectors' Association, the National Firearms Association, L'Association de tir de Quebec, the Firearms and Responsible Ownership Group, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, and many other groups from which I have received representations. We should seek the full co-operation of all these organizations and all levels of government in establishing rules and regulations with regard to gun control. It is, therefore, very important, if we are to reach consensus,
March 31, 1976

that this bill be given second reading as soon as possible and sent to the committee for study and possible amendment.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to inform the House that it has not been possible to reach an agreement under the provisions of Standing Order 75A or 75B in respect of proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-83, an act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime which is now under discussion. I therefore give notice of my intention to propose, at the next sitting of the House, a motion pursuant to Standing Order 75C for the purpose of allocating four further days for the consideration and disposal of proceedings on that stage of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: You are afraid of your own shadow, and afraid of your own legislation.


An hon. Member:: It won't stand up to public scrutiny.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor. The last minute or so will not be counted against his time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am always astounded at the word "Shame" which is pronounced by members of the opposition with big smiles on their faces. They smile and yell "Shame". I wonder how serious they are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I should like to have the amendments put into this bill, but hon. members opposite do not want the amendments put in because they do not want to go into committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Taking for granted, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues have all read Bill C-83 and knowing already that my constituents have received the documentation I sent them concerning the public order and security program, I will not deal with the subject as a whole since its factors or components are well known and largely publicized. I will rather emphasize an important element which is not included in the explanatory notes on the program, in the part dealing with the prevention of crime.
The basic principle of the amendment I would like to see examined by the committee would be to prevent any broadcaster from airing before 9 o'clock p.m. any program likely to promote, glorify or justify the use of firearms to settle conflicts. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) talked about violence on television. It is that matter, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to discuss.
Measures Against Crime
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the Canadian society, through its representatives, wants to take the necessary measures to get better protection against perpetrators of violent and other crimes, in so far as protection against crime requires by its very nature that we identify all the measures to be taken to prevent a rise in crime.
One of these factors has not been mentioned, in spite of the undeniable and increasing impact of its social import in our modern society. I refer to television or, in other words, to the daily presence of violence in every Canadian's life and particularly in the education of our youth. This problem is a very important one with which we must come to grips if we really want to prevent recurrence of violence which is often an underlying aspect of television programs.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a few comments from a speech delivered by Dr. Northrop Frye of the CRTC about violence in general. This is what he said:

I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that the opposite of violence seems always to be non-violence, as though violence was a positive thing and we had nothing to put against it except a negation. Wherever there is one human being there is a very considerable output of mental and physical energy, and wherever there is more than one human being those energies are going to conflict. It seems to me that violence, as we have been using the word here, is misapplied energy. It is to energy what prostitution is to sexual love. As such, it really is a negative force, and controlling violence would be the way to set human energy free for its proper tasks. I quote the following:
Controlling violence means, first of all, raising the level of society. The people who produce and sell socially irresponsible programs are thinking of their viewers as a mob rather than a community. The mob is the lowest form of community: it is a completely homogeneous society organized for hatred, and will not remain a mob long unless it can find someone to beat up, or, failing that, something to smash. When a television program depicts someone being slowly beaten to death, the primary appeal is: "Look at this: isn't fun?" As soon as anyone begins to object that this may be a wrong kind of fun, the violence is immediately rationalized, and turns self-righteous. All rationalized violence has much the same argument, the argument behind all fights on school playgrounds is: he started it. That is, whenever violence is rationalized it is asserted to be counterviolence. Somebody else did something first, and we have to resist it. That is true of the violence of capital punishment; it is true of the violence of Palestinian terrorists. Fictional violence, however, may be rationalized more simply as a refusal to take a positive attitude in a violent world: for example, this is what we're all involved in, whether we like it or not, etc. But the real reason is simply lack of imagination: depicting violence is easy, quick, and profitable. It is easy partly because violence is a mechanical form of human energy: so mechanical that it can even be quantified or classified as "heavy" or "light". As a mechanical cause producing a mechanical response, violence never accomplishes anything: the pendulum of aggression and counteraggression simply goes on swinging all through history.

This quotation from a speech by Dr. Frye with which I agree, is a brief summary of an overall problem. In dictionaries, violence is defined as "intense force". No one would deny that when we use our most developed senses, hearing and sight, we are subject to television and no one would deny the importance and power of this media. Let us not be mistaken about my purpose here.

March 31, 1976
Measures Against Crime
I do not pass judgement on television as such, but on a significant proportion of its contents. In so doing, I speak for every Canadian who clearly blamed that kind of program for the surge of violence, a radical one to say the least. In the context of a gallup poll, Canadian pollsters ask Canadians to indicate the cause of the increasing rate of crime and violence among six possible factors. Fifty-four per cent of Canadians said television was the third most important cause.
Most human social behaviours are learned through observation and imitation. Because television is vivacious, true to type and ubiquitous, we may conclude that adults as much as children model themselves on behaviours they see on television. Indeed, a recent study by American sociologists showed that the greater the number of violent television programs a child sees, the more aggressive he can be expected to be. It is felt that a teenager just out of highschool will have watched television for 15,000 hours, during which he will have witnessed 31,000 murders. These figures are not far-fetched. They were gathered in the course of a study by Dr. Katz, a psychiatrist, which was published at the 25th Canadian Psychiatrist Conventions held in October of 1975.
Violence on television has sometimes been rationalized in the name of morals and nothing less, on the grounds that the bad boy is punished for his misdeeds. The result is nonetheless that violence is depicted as a solution to problems.
During the summer of 1974, the CRTC Research Branch surveyed 55 entertainment programs broadcast by two Canadian TV stations. A total 108 violent episodes were reported in a 36-hour screening period, a frequency of three murders per hour. Significantly, the great majority of programs and violent acts telecasted were American production.
This is the crucial point: The influence of American culture, which is evident with the multitude of television stations brought in by cable, constitutes a threat for us. The economic factor is greatly responsible for this situation. It seems that programs bought outside Canada subsidize the production of Canadian programs by commercial networks. For instance, series like Mannix, Cannon and Kojak are bought by the American network at a cost of $250,000 per program, while Canadian broadcasters-and all other foreign buyers-can purchase the same series for as little as $5,000, which constitutes a certain monetary advantage.
So-called violent programs are mostly imported from the United States, as I said earlier. If we classify all half-hour segments of television programs shown in Toronto according to their country of origin, and the category violent, non-violent, sports and news, we see that 34 per cent of programs of all origins are violent and that most of them, or 68 per cent, come from the United States. Forty-seven per cent of American programs contain some violence compared with only 3 per cent of Canadian programs. The dramatic series shown on American television are oriented towards crime and violence. This choice of programs is therefore deliberate.
All this suggests, Mr. Speaker, that television can have a negative cumulative effect. It makes the population more concerned about the dangers of society than real life condi-

tions would justify. Such programs constitute the greatest of all threats against human dignity and the respect of life itself.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House and the committee have to seriously consider the possibility of restricting the viewing of violent programs where firearms are used to solve conflicts during so-called family hours.
My aim is to awaken public opinion to the constant threat of television programs where violence is in some way made prestigious and justifiable, and we must stop promoting this misconception in a civilized society.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that I shall have the opportunity to present my amendment properly to the committee and during the report stage of the bill.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, before I open my remarks on the bill I want to say how shocked I am and how shocked is, I am sure, the whole House at the recent announcement of the government House leader invoking closure on this important matter which we are debating, a matter which is vital to every Canadian citizen and which affects the liberties of all Canadians. I am shocked and surprised at the announcement.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: They want to muzzle parliament.


An hon. Member:: They are muzzling the Canadian people.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Surely it must have been authorized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I do not know why the government is in such a hurry and is proposing to slough off and ignore these important items which we are putting forward in defence of the liberty and rights of most Canadian citizens.
I should like to open my remarks on Bill C-83 by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko) on the excellent speech he made over a week ago tonight. Both he and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), who spoke on the following Monday, have effectively stripped this bill of any semblance it might have had to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) called the government's major legislative initiative. I give my unqualified support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North to have the gun control legislation separated from the totally unrelated material in the rest of this bill.
As the hon. member for Edmonton East pointed out, many of us could be placed in the position of voting against the bill in order to vote against a particular part of it. This is grossly unfair, Mr. Speaker-not only grossly unfair to members who hold those opinions but also to their constituents.
I wonder if the Minister of Justice really believes that there are people who are so naive as to suppose that guns leap out of their cases, load themselves, then rush out and commit crimes. It is not so, but that is what we are
March 31, 1976

expected to believe if we accept the minister's rationale that the way to deal with gun-related crimes is to licence all law-abiding Canadian gun owners. In the game of credibility, the minister is batting zero.
It has been pointed out over the years and in the last few days in this House that guns do not go out and commit murders. People commit murders. Short of setting up a communist state in Canada, there is no way we can legislate against free movement and free activity. As long as we preserve the degree of liberty and freedom we enjoy in Canada, people will be free to move about and commit acts both legal and illegal, sad to say. In communist countries, governments legislate what people may own, what they can do and where they can go; yet communist states are not free of crime. Do we have to go so far abroad to find support for the thesis that crime cannot be eliminated simply by restricting the rights of the innocent? I should think anyone of average intelligence would work that out in his or her own mind without the need to do any more than just think.
In this legislation on gun control, the Minister of Justice, in effect, tells us he has six criminals, figuratively speaking, ans six law-abiding citizens, so naturally he has a round dozen of something or other. The fact is that he does not have a dozen of anything, Mr. Speaker. He has six people of a type that we should be seeking in this legislation to control, and six people of a type who should be left strictly alone. Six apples and six oranges do not make a dozen of either apples or aranges, and I hope that we will not delay too long in separating this bill into its pertinent parts.
I wonder just how much more control over personal rights and freedoms the Canadian people will accept before they rebel. It might be that the gun controls proposed in this bill will push the average Canadian over the line. No doubt some people of uneven temper and certain mental make-up will be pushed over the line as a result of the legislation. I happen to believe that even if we were to spend the millions of dollars it would cost to register all gun owners in Canada, we would not be certain of whether we had in fact registered all gun owners, three-quarters of them or even just half of them.
Experience that other countries have had with gun registration-and that goes for both pistols and long-guns-is that there are eventually more unregistered guns in a given city or country after a time than there are registered guns. In North America, particularly, people have traditionally felt that they had a right to own shotguns and rifles. On this half-continent our whole history and economy is founded on the historic traditional and sensible use of firearms. That is why, today, in millions of Canadian homes there are firearms belonging to the family. They are not used very often, but families have a historic right to them. In the United States they have the right to own long-guns enshrined in their constitution. It is difficult, if not impossible, to convince people in Canada that they should accept gun controls because the federal government has this hang-up about limiting and restricting civil rights.
Mr. Speaker, if I thought for a minute that we could fight crime in Canada by forcing law-abiding people to line up and register as gun owners, dog owners, budgie owners, or any other hobbyists, then I would have to give it a try. I
Measures Against Crime
am just as interested as anyone else in controlling violent crime in Canada, and if I match my record of public statements against those of the Minister of Justice and the Sollicitor General (Mr. Allmand), then I have to say that I am more interested in combating crime than they are.
However, unlike those ministers, I do not propose to combat crime by chipping away at the rights and privileges of the victims of crime and the potential victims of crime while ignoring those at whom this kind of legislation should be directed. It would help a lot in our anti-crime campaign-if it can be called by that name-if we could get just a little help from the ministers across the floor. It would help a great deal if the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General would stop wringing their hands and sobbing over the fate of some poor fellow who happens to be found guilty of a vicious and senseless murder.
I have repeated over and over again, Mr. Speaker, that my sympathies are with the law-abiding citizen and with the victims of crime. When we have a federal minister who opens a speech on a bill designed to control crime with the statement that the bill seeks to protect the rights and dignity of those charged with offences, then I feel inclined to reserve my sympathies for the victims. The rights and dignity of those charged with offences are already protected by legislation existing since the time of confederation. We certainly want to defend those rights, but that is not our paramount concern at this time. The minister's statement at least ran true to form, because we find the minister saying later in his speech that these gun control proposals will assist the government's efforts to control gun-related crimes.
The member for Edmonton East related a few instances of how the rights and privileges of Canadians are steadily being eroded by this government's succession of controls- controls over the economy, controls over the incomes of working people by way of oppressive taxation, the abolition of the right of inheritance, and control of communications. What about the necessity and the right of people in some occupations and exposures to carry a gun, usually a hand-gun? This right, history has shown, has always existed, and it is our duty to see that it is maintained. A licence for use by this section of the law-abiding public should always be available. I will list two or three categories, and I am sure members have others in mind. Some of these categories are: women on late night duty should be able to carry a gun if they wish; nurses and others having to traverse areas not having full-time police surveillance during early morning hours; and messengers and people who carry considerable sums of money in unprotected regions and areas. A licence to carry a gun for these reasons is often the best form of crime prevention.
I will give an example in my own family. It took place long before I was born, but I will always remember the story as told to me years ago by an uncle, R. W. Kimmerly of Napanee who passed to his reward in 1951 at the age of 95. He was engaged as a young man in about 1880 to peddle goods and merchandise. He used a covered wagon and travelled northward out of Deseronto, Ontario, for the Rathbun Company, a large lumber and timber complex of that era. He was badly scared and roughed up one night in a hotel yard in one of the villages along the way, but with help he managed to defend his wagon against the hood-

March 31, 1976
Measures Against Crime
lums who were bent on stealing his goods. Before he began his next trip northward he bought a licence to carry a hand gun and bought a gun and shoulder holster. When he arrived back at the same village and stopped for the night at the same hotel, he made sure to tell the proprietor that he was now carrying a weapon, and showed him his licence. Word was circulated by the proprietor, and from that time forward the local wild boys ceased their violent antics and treated my uncle with the deepest respect. He had no more trouble; he never had to fire the gun and he never used it. The moral of that old, true story of 1880 holds true today. Outlaws respect one thing only: the naked power of right, rigidly reinforced by a potent deterrent.
Every time this government is engaged in devious activity, or when it finds itself in an impasse over some boondoggle like this attempt to fight crime by impinging on the few rights left to Canadians, the Prime Minister creates a new diversion. Taking this government on past performance, Mr. Speaker, we must assume, when debating these gun control proposals, that this is only the beginning. When the bureaucracy needed to administer this law is in place, we can expect some further action with respect to gun owners. The Minister of Justice knows full well that you do not fight crime by taking away the rights and privileges of law-abiding citizens. Even if we only asume that the minister is an intelligent man, we must assume that he is party to a plan that is broader and more encompassing than the provisions in this legislative proposal.
It has already been pointed out that, like all other legislation pushed through this House by the present government, this bill in its present form is open-ended enough to allow for extension and expansion without end. It has been estimated that it will take at least 6,000 man-years of labour to conduct an initial registration of gun owners in Canada and the cost could run into millions. We have found through bitter experience that this government exceeds all estimates by four or five times and even more.
What is to happen to the bureaucracy after the registration has been accomplished? Again, our experience has shown that these bureaucracies, these temporary agencies remain in place, intact. In fact, like ill-starred Information Canada, it grows and grows with nothing meaningful to do and doing nothing meaningful. With nothing to do, the gun agency will be seeking things to do with its personnel, its time and its power. If my fears are realized, this agency will become even more restrictive. The big bosses in Ottawa will surely find some ways to further harass the law-abiding gun owners. They will have to justify their existence and protect their jobs.
Much has been said about how much the fee should be for gun owners to register their guns. If it gets to that point, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there should not be any fee. Gun owners are being asked to come forward voluntarily to register and tell the bureaucrats how many guns they own. I own three guns, but do not use them any more. Once I was an ardent hunter. I keep the three guns at home. I think they are serviceable. I do not mind registering them, but that is as far as I want to go.

Since the Minister of Justice cannot show how this proposed law could play any part in helping to control gun-related crime, there should not be any fee for registering. In these days of efficient computers, surely one computer could efficiently register all the serial numbers and makes of the millions of guns in this country. The process would not be costly and would not need a large bureaucracy. Why not take advantage of the computer age? As it is, the government wants to put another burden on the backs of Canadians. The fee will be just another imposition on top of a totally unnecessary and uncalled for restriction. I say to the Prime Minister, give us free registration.
Before I conclude my remarks on the gun control section of this bill I would like to say that it is already an offence under the Criminal Code to own an automatic weapon, a sawed-off rifle, shotgun or unregistered pistol. I suggest that what we need instead of restrictions on law-abiding, long-gun owners, is more severe minimum sentences for those convicted of possessing and using these restricted or prohibited weapons. Some judges today are inclined to apply the slap on the wrist in these cases rather than to impose a deterrent sentence. Perhaps we should demand minimum sentences in some cases.
As I said before, I deplore the restriction by closure which will limit our time for debating this bill. When the bill is in committee, I hope the necessary amendments will be moved so that we can improve the bill and make it more satisfactory and fair to all Canadians.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my main comments on the second reading of Bill C-83, may I commend my House leader for showing the essential leadership needed if parliament is to survive as a useful institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Steve Eugene Paproski: You will live to regret it.


Alan Gray Martin: After the motion has been put we shall debate for the bill for four more days, which will give more than enough time for members on all sides to make their contributions. It is important to send the bill to committee soon. In committee it will be examined by members of parliament and we may hear contributions from such members of the public as may wish to appear.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What guarantee is there that you will not impose closure in committee?


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are lucky you can speak today.


Alan Gray Martin: So far, the discussion on this bill has centred mainly on the two aspects of gun control and wiretapping. Bear in mind, this bill is far more extensive than that and covers much more than those two subjects. Indeed, it is useful to remind hon. members of the title of the bill, an act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime. The bill encompasses some 73 pages and contains many important clauses. It is, therefore, a mistake for hon. members to suggest that the bill deals mainly with guns and wiretapping. It is an all-encompassing bill and must be so considered.
March 31, 1976

As was mentioned in the debate by way of background, it is easier to maintain control than regain it. This bill is designed to amend the criminal law, improve this country's administration of criminal justice, come to grips with the increasing incidence of crime in Canadian society, and provide the public with the greater measure of protection which it wants.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to discuss the aspects of gun control. This was the first matter that was brought to my attention by a constituent after my arrival in Ottawa as a new member of parliament in the summer of 1974. The first item brought to my attention was, indeed, from a constituent who was most concerned about the freedom with which guns could be acquired in this country. I was asked to inform him what was happening in connection with a bill which was referred to as Senator Cameron's bill.
One of my first priorities on arriving here was not to try and find out specific information on a specific bill: however, on doing some research on it, it became evident that this particular senator had put forward, in two or three parliaments, a bill dealing with the subject of gun control. It had gone into committee at least twice and had died because of sessions ending or parliament being prorogued. My understanding is that this particular bill was a sequel to a bill presented to parliament by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) as a private member's bill when he was a backbench member. There has, indeed, been considerable attention paid to gun control in this country. In fact, I further understand that the omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code in 1969 contained elements relating to gun control.
Correspondence is still coming forward to myself, and I am sure to other members of parliament, asking "What are you doing, as a government? What do you intend to do in relation to gun control? Can you not see the problem that is before the public? When are you going to give us some leadership?" I suggest that this is not new. It is by no means something that is arriving for the first time. It is an area in which the Canadian public is demanding, not requesting, some action by the federal government.
In my own brief reviews of this matter before the legislation came forward I had the opportunity to spend a whole evening with a concerned citizen in the Toronto area who is chairman of the Toronto chapter of the National Firearms Association. This citizen and several others got together some time ago because of their concern over the matter of inadequate gun controls and their inability to work through the bureaucracy to try to get something on their own. They put together a group of recommendations which they were able finally to discuss with the Solicitor General and his officials. I was very impressed with this concerted citizen act. It is my hope, and indeed it is the case, that this bill now incorporates many of the aspects these people brought to light.
In reviewing the many cases involved in gun control we must bear in mind that unnecessary fears have been put into the minds of the Canadian public. This has been done to some extent by the media and to some extent by members of this House, indicating that suddenly weapons are
Measures Against Crime
going to be seized and that people will not be able to continue holding on to their collections of guns. We must understand this is not the intention. Rather, the intention of the gun control legislation is to license people just as today we license a person who drives an automobile.
The automobile is presumably considered some sort of lethal weapon, otherwise why did we go to the great trouble many years ago to bring out such things as drivers' licences and automobile licences? Surely, it was felt at that time by governments in all provinces, states and governmental jurisdictions, that this was something new, had certain dangers attached to it and that it was necessary not only to keep control of where the vehicles were and what was happening to them, but to ensure that those who got behind the wheel of those vehicles had some basic qualifications to qualify them to take a vehicle on the road without becoming an undue menace to the rest of the public. Surely, there is an analogy here. It has been suggested across the way that we do not need this kind of licensing, that we have too many licences today. I am sure these people would not want to suggest the elimination of drivers' licences or automobile licences. They are accepted in society today.
I believe that society is now ready to accept some kind of licensing, some kind of assurance that the person who is going to operate a gun of some form of other is going to be qualified to do so. After all, he does possess a lethal weapon, a weapon that can do harm to others. It is the same as when he gets behind the wheel of an automobile. I think it makes eminent sense to look at that analogy in the light of what governments have done in the area of control over automobiles and their drivers.
We are not asking that all guns be licensed; we are suggesting that dealers be licensed. When speaking last spring to an eminent member of parliament in Sweden who was here with his finance committee, I posed the question of gun control. He said that for years it has been accepted that guns can only be sold in Sweden at licensed outlets. He took it as such a norm that he could not understand the point of my question. It is accepted in Sweden that you do not sell guns you know something about the gun business and are a qualified person. This kind of licensing is acceptable.
It is clear in Sweden that a person who has a gun in his home is licensed. This indicates that he is qualified to handle the weapon. I might go a step further and indicate that they are not permitted to leave a weapon in a state where it can immediately be used. In other words, the bolt must be removed. This is the attitude adopted by the military. It is done for one clear purpose, to prevent theft and misuse. That is not recommended in this legislation but it is something that could be considered in the future. It is important to consider how weapons are maintained in the home. There should be an insistence that weapons are maintained carefully and in a manner in which there is a psychological response to a person dashing over, picking up a weapon and running down the street in a moment when he may feel somewhat berserk.
Much more could be said about gun control. It is important that we are imposing a higher maximum sentence in the case of crime involving an offensive weapon. It is important that the police have some power of seizure. It is

March 31, 1976
Measures Against Crime
equally important that the limitations of this legislation be clearly spelled out so that the fears expressed by some people cannot possibly occur.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 1, 1976