1976-04-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provision of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the serious loss of men and ships on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts in recent years, and in view of the admission of the Minister of National Defence that on the Pacific coast Canada does not have an air-rescue capability after dark, and the statement of the Minister of Transport yesterday that "It has become evident that... the marine search and rescue organization is no longer entirely adequate", I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That the House urges the Prime Minister to order a restructuring of the search and rescue organization under a single agency responsible to one minister, and that immediate steps be taken to procure adequate facilities and equipment for air and marine search and rescue operations on a 24-hour a day basis.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43 having to do with a matter that is urgent and pressing. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House directs the Minister of Transport to direct Air Canada to stop contracting out finance work in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa in preparation for a lockout of Air Canada employees at the finance branch in Winnipeg and that the Minister of Labour personally intervene in the three-year labour dispute.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provision of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Since the dairy policy for the year 1976-77 has not yet been announced, industrial milk producers are greatly worried, and it is therefore urgent that the government reassure producers concerning the income levels they may expect for the current year. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House recommend to cabinet to make available to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) the funds necessary to allow the Canadian Dairy Commission to maintain milk prices at a level permitting an increase in income equal to that in other sectors of the economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED TAKING OF UNDESERVED CREDIT FOR PRICE REDUCTIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have this written out today. Given that the recent decline in the rate of inflation in the consumer price index has been caused by declines in the prices of imported goods and of farm prices over which the Anti-Inflation Board has no jurisdiction and that the flexibility of retail prices in reaction to these wholesale farm prices is the same now as it was before the institution of the program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

April 8, 1976
Northern Affairs
That this House congratulate the public relations officers of the Anti-Inflation Board for the adroit manner in which they have inappropriately taken credit for the board for contributing to these price reductions.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move an important and urgent motion.
Given the continuing difficulties that arise between the Electoral Boundaries Commissions for the provinces and members of parliament, since also the experience of implementing the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act appears to be inefficient, and since above all the principle of this act is directly contrary to the interests of Quebecers and French Canadians in view of our ever decreasing percentage of representation in this Parliament, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House recommend to the government the repeal of the present act and the preparation of another more adequate and more appropriate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for unanimous consent to a most reasoned motion. In view of the fact the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made an announcement recently that the decision to grant or withhold a permit for off-shore drilling in the Beaufort Sea will be delayed for a short period, and in view of the expenditure of approximately $150 million by Dome Petroleum in anticipation of a final permit due to

the premature announcement of approval in principle by the government in March, 1974, and in view of the preliminary environmental studies, both private and public, which indicate a potential environmental disaster from such activities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
First, that no decision be taken to grant drill permits until the matter has been specifically referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for study and report to the House, and second, that all correspondence between Dome and the government and all legal opinions regarding the government's financial liability for moneys already spent by Dome be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY ON DRINKING WATER-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since our drinking water is an ocean of industrial waste and may be harmful to the health of all Canadians and since, on account of that fact, there are many cases of poisoning each year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs initiate an immediate inquiry on the problem of the quality of water which is definitely very poor in Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec, and report to the House on the steps to take to solve this problem which is endangering the health of all Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion may not be put.
April 8, 1976



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with regard to the so called Sky Shops affair and related matters. Can the minister indicate briefly to the House what role members of his senior staff played in this matter, whether these roles were carried out with his knowledge and authorization, and what action he has taken to ensure that the RCMP have access to all relevant information with regard to these activities, if any?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member is referring to my responsibilities during my tenure as minister of transport, because of course there is no relationship in terms of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. My answer to the latter part of his question is that I was asked by the RCMP whether I would object if they looked at the files which are on file, I think with Public Archives. I gave them full access to them. Beyond that I have no official knowledge. I have, however, been informed informally that there was an exchange of correspondence between the executive assistant of the Minister of the Environment and my executive assistant. But what disposition was made of that beyond that point, I have no personal knowledge at present.


SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-ROLE OF OFFICIALS OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT IN GRANTING LEASE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of the Environment whether he can clarify the role his staff played with regard to the Sky Shops affair, and whether unauthorized acts and signatures were arranged without his knowledge? Can he say anything to parliament at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Within whatever limitations might be placed on that question in the question period I do not know whether any minister could ever describe, in the terms asked, the role played by him or his staff in terms of an affair. It seems to me rather expansive. I think the hon. member will have to be more specific.


SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-KNOWLEDGE OF PRIME MINISTER OF THE ROLE OF OFFICIALS IN GRANTING LEASE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can ask a question of the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman indicate that he has been fully briefed on the role of the offices of these two former ministers of DREE and Transport in this matter, and can he assure this House unequivocally that there have been no improprieties in executive or administrative functions relating to the Sky Shops matters arising out of the actions of these two ministers?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not asked to be fully briefed. I understand that the mounted police are conducting an investigation and that they have submitted a report to the attorney general of the province of Quebec. That is the extent of my knowledge.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: If I understand the right hon. gentleman correctly, he is telling the House that he has not been fully briefed and has no knowledge of any of the affairs which have been obliquely referred to by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and he knows nothing of any improprieties in administrative functions which have taken place in those two offices, the office of the former minister of DREE and the former minister of transport.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, that is a misunderstanding. What I am saying is that I have no knowledge of the file which has been given by the mounted police to the Quebec attorney general as a basis for any legal action. I do not know what material was given and whether there were or were not recommendations. Of course, I have talked about this matter to the Minister of the Environment and other ministers.


SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-INQUIRY AS TO DECISION ON FILE TURNED OVER TO QUEBEC
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will apprise himself of the circumstances relating to this matter. This is indeed a very serious situation.
I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister advise the House whether he has been in touch with the attorney general for the province of Quebec or the chief prosecutor there to ascertain what progress is being made or what decision has been made with respect to the file turned over to the province's justice department involving Sky Shops and other investigations?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not, because the RCMP is properly reporting to the provincial authorities in this matter. As far as I am aware there are no so-called federal offences involved, and therefore the RCMP would not report to me on the matter.


SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-SUGGESTION SOLICITOR GENERAL ENSURE NO DELAY IN ACTING ON FILE TURNED OVER TO QUEBEC
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Since the Solicitor General has indicated that the file with respect to the Sky Shops investigation has been completed, and since, apparently, it has been in the possession of the department of justice for the province of Quebec for some time, will the minister assure the House that he will monitor the situation so that there will be no appearance of political expediency in any delays which may take place in dealing with this matter?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot admit that this file has been in the hands of the provincial government for some time. It is my understand-

April 8, 1976
Oral Questions
ing that it was only transmitted to the provincial government in the last week or two. I do not know the exact time, but it was recent. On the other hand, and in answer to the second question, I think it might be improper for me to approach the provincial attorney general and put any kind of pressure on him either to take proceedings or not to take proceedings. That is his responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the minister acknowledged that the government will proceed to spend $1 billion on 18 aircraft on the absurd assumption that such aircraft will help head off a protracted land war in Europe. I should like to ask the minister how the government plans now-having committed all that money for the next few years in that direction-to meet its primary defence position as stated in the white paper on defence, namely, the protection of Canadian sovereignty, and most specifically I am thinking of the commitment to protect Canadian shorelines for Canadian fishermen in the years ahead.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I replied to the hon. member that the aircraft we are purchasing will in fact help us protect Canadian sovereignty. Beyond that we do have other funds available to carry out the other programs, for instance, to keep the tracker aircraft, which are our coastal surveillance aircraft, flying. We have the funds, despite the large expenditure for the long range patrol aircraft.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister suggesting that the kind of complex, expensive equipment that will be put in the Orions if the government goes ahead with its decision is the kind that is appropriate for the surveillance of our coastal waters that will be required if the government proceeds, for example, with the 200 mile fishing limit, as it indicated it would? Is the minister saying that we have to spend $1 billion on 18 aircraft to fulfil that kind of role?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker, I am definitely not saying that. The primary role of a long range patrol aircraft is an anti-submarine role, but it also has capabilities that will assist in the surveillance of our coasts and of the north.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-POSSIBILITY OF GREATER EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES BY PURCHASE OF DASH-7R
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister would acknowledge that the Orion aircraft will not have

anything to do at all with the protection of sovereignty; the minister knows that. With reference to an answer that the minister gave yesterday about the long range employment possibilities to Canada that would accrue from the Orion decision, may I ask him the following question. Would he not admit that by purchasing the appropriate number of Dash-7R aircraft, whose air frames are produced in Canada and whose engines are also produced in Canada, and by re-equipping the appropriate number of Argus aircraft, the minister would not only get more aircraft that would fulfil the job with which he is concerned, but would produce more Canadian jobs at considerably less expense to Canadian taxpayers?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, those options have been examined carefully, not only with regard to military capability but also with regard to industrial benefits. As I have stated, the industrial benefits to Canada are greater with the Lockheed purchase than they would be with the purchase of the Dash-7 or the refitting of the Argus. Further, the Dash-7 is not a long range patrol aircraft. It has not got the range to do the job, and it would take at least seven or eight Dash-7's to do the work that two Orions could perform.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Justice.
Without revealing the content of the testimony of Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer at the inquiry on organized crime, can the Minister of Justice tell the House today, as a follow-up to my questions of March 24 and 31, whether he took personal knowledge of the said testimony before giving Mr. Justice Lamer such an important responsibility as the one of presiding over the Law Reform Commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand that matter was examined by the deputy at the time of the original question.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would rather ask a supplementary of the Solicitor General since it seems to me I will never get anything out of the Minister of Justice. The Solicitor General was there a moment ago. I would appreciate it if he could go back to his seat.
April 8, 1976

Did the minister ask the RCMP to make an investigation on Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer as is usually done before making an important appointment, and is the minister aware of the deep friendship that existed between Mr. Justice Lamer and tavern keeper Jean-Jacques Cote who publicly testified before the commission on organized crime and against whom criminal action has been taken?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with those allegations but no investigation was made, to my knowledge, by the RCMP.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is supplementary to that posed by the hon. member for Central Nova. It relates to the recent developments concerning the awarding of government contracts and arises particularly from the summary of tendering procedures for the Mirabel duty free shop which the minister outlined in this House some time ago. Can the minister explain why in his department's attempt to justify the awarding of the duty free concession to Sky Shops, not one of the eight bidders other than Sky Shops were given any points in the evaluation criteria for advertising, while Sky Shops received the maximum, a total of five points in this category? How can the minister reconcile this evaluation in the face of the charges now outstanding relating to false and misleading advertising against Sky Shops?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the fact that that matter is before the courts, it is unfortunate to try to link the question of the advertising contained in the bid and the advertising referred to in the last part of the question. The actual analysis of bids is an extremely complex matter. It could be better dealt with this afternoon when the estimates of the Department of Transport are before the committee, rather than trying to deal with it this way in the House without the material before us.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In as much as this is the only evaluation criteria, which is specifically advertising, out of a total of 13 other specific items where every single tenderer received some points, Sky Shops drew the maximum number of five while other bidders did not receive any points for advertising, does the minister not consider this somewhat strange? Does he not consider that there is just a wee bit of suspicion with regard to the evaluation of this total contract? Will the minister now come clean and tell the House why Sky Shops did get the contract?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the examination and the question of the bids was in the hands of an evaluation committee. The minister has come clean by putting the evaluation summary and process before the House in answer to earlier questions. It is there. If certain of the bidders did not put
Oral Questions
in any information at all about a certain program or proposal as part of their bid, they may not get any points for that. However, that is a matter that really depends on looking back at the bidding process at the time. The material is all available to the hon. member. He should not accuse anyone of not coming clean.


SKY SHOPS AT MIRABEL-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ADVERTISING PROGRAM
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's answer, is he prepared to table this super-duper advertising program which Sky Shops produced to the Ministry of Transport in as much as 99 per cent of the purchases in the duty free concession shops are impulse buying and there is not a heck of a lot of advertising that has to be done? Will the minister table that super-duper contract?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be glad to look at that. Members who have been watching what has been tabled probably are not able to keep up with all the material. They know that I am co-operative and I will see what I can do about this.


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In working out his budget which he will be presenting in May, is the minister planning to limit the increase in government spending during the next fiscal year to the range of 10 Vt per cent which was achieved by the Ontario government in its budget which was presented just two days ago and by so doing save the Canadian taxpayers around $2 billion in the next fiscal year?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, any changes in the budgetary system, either with regard to revenue or expenditure, are most intelligently left until the budget statement itself.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Knowing the Prime Minister's desire to see the universe unfold as it should, would he care to comment on Dr. Gallup's indication of how the universe is going to unfold during the next two years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to think this one over.
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES

April 8, 1976


PRINCE ALBERT-REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO CONDITIONS IN INSTITUTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It has to do with the sit-down in Prince Albert Penitentiary. The cause of the sit-down is, of course, still very serious. The prison as a whole has been in a state of deep frustration in recent days. There has been no criticism of the director or assistant director of the penitentiary or, indeed, of the custodial staff. The reason for the sit-down is the fact that an overwhelming percentage of those in the prison are young people, natives or Metis and there are no effective programs for them. Would he, in order to guard against any repetition of what has taken place, have an independent inquiry made, presided over, say, by the Chief Justice of Saskatchewan, to the end that those in penitentiaries will come to the conclusion, and properly so, that any injustices which they claim exist will be removed thereby assuring a degree of peace in the penitentiary which will not be followed again by what has happened in the last ten days-two suicides among the inmates.
[DOT] (M30)


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was advised just before the question period began that the sit-down strike at Prince Albert Penitentiary had been settled and that everybody is back in their places without any violence or trouble. The reason given for the sit-down strike was the inadequacy of medical services in the penitentiary. This is being investigated. With respect to the matters mentioned by the right hon. member, the high proportion of native people in our penitentiaries, we recognise this problem. Last year we held a federal-provincial conference on this subject at which five or six major native organizations were represented. We have established follow-up procedures and progress is being made. But it remains a serious problem as pointed out by the right hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: The question I placed before the minister was this: in order to remove the deep resentment which has apparently developed regarding alleged wrongs, possibly unjustified, will he not, to secure peace in that institution, permit an independent investigation by a judge such as I have suggested?


William Warren Allmand: I do not think that is necessary at the present time. As I say, we have been in touch with the native groups. We have established a committee to deal with this problem. The committee is made up of a leader of the native groups, the Metis and the Indians; we are making progress in dealing with this problem and I do not think a commission of the kind suggested is necessary now.


John George Diefenbaker: You would not say that if you knew the conditions there.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of press reports that Ralph Ferguson resigned as Vice-Chairman of the National Farm Products Marketing Council because he was dissatisfied with the application of the CEMA quota system limiting production in Ontario, and that he tendered his resignation in a letter to the minister outlining his disagreement with the CEMA system, I ask the minister whether he will table Mr. Ferguson's letter for the information of the House and the public? In addition, will he inform us whether it is correct that the Ontario minister of agriculture has refused to sign the 1976 quota allocation agreement with that agency and, if that is the case, what plans he has, in consequence, for that egg marketing agency?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Ferguson did submit his resignation and I have accepted it. As I said to an hon. member from the other side of the House who asked me last week, he submitted his resignation last year and I asked him to stay on one year longer; he wanted to return to his farm. He did make several suggestions in the letter that a certain province was not living up to the agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Table the letter!


Eugene Whelan: I do not have to table the letter because it was a confidential letter written to me by a member of the Council.


George Harris Hees: You have to table it because you have referred to it.


Eugene Whelan: I do not have to table it until I obtain the concurrence of the person who wrote the letter and follow the correct procedure. He made accusations in the letter about the allocation of the quota. These accusations have been made known to the Council and it is up to the Council to investigate and try to work the matter out. As far as the minister of agriculture in the Province of Ontario is concerned, if they do not want CEMA I do not force CEMA on anyone. If they don't want it and don't want to live up to the agreements, they are the ones who will destroy CEMA, not me.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: On a point of order. The minister has referred to the contents of a letter which he now refuses to table.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Without going into detail with respect to the precedents, the minister is, of course, obliged to table a document if he has referred to it in the course of debate and advances an argument accordingly; if he initiates a reference to a document he ought to be obliged to table it. However, this certainly has never been held to apply to a situation in which a minister has simply been asked a question about a document and given an answer.
April 8, 1976


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR DELAY OF DECISION ON APPLICATION OF OIL COMPANIES FOR A PRICE INCREASE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It arises from the application to the Anti-Inflation Board by such poverty-stricken oil companies as Imperial Oil and Gulf Oil for permission to increase their product prices. The Board has said it may make a decision this week. In view of the fact that the increase, if granted, would be in addition to any increase in the wellhead price expected in July, and since these companies control production, refining and distribution outlets, for which reason their various operations should be treated as those of a single corporate entity, may I ask the minister if he will request the Anti-Inflation Board to postpone any decision with respect to the application for a price increase until the wellhead price has been set either by federal-provincial agreement or unilaterally by the federal government under the provisions of the Petroleum Administration Act?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I was advised before coming into the House that the Board had made a decision on this particular application. I am seeking further information as to the details. The point made by the hon. member, one which I have already taken elsewhere, is that until a decision is taken in the negotiations with regard to the basic price of crude oil, any increase should be postponed. I will advocate that such a course of action be followed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the Consumer Price Index covering fuels and utilities has risen more sharply than the index respecting any other item-17.5 per cent during the past 12 months-and in view of the fact that the wellhead price increase in July, which is expected to be in the neighbourhood of $1.50 per barrel, will add $50 to the cost of home heating for the average family and $35 to the cost of operating one car, I should like to ask the minister whether he does not think the time has come to stop these predators who, under the excuse of the energy shortage, are gouging Canadian consumers while at the same time enjoying the highest profit margins in their history?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member has expressed an interesting point of view, and one which I will reflect upon.


SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF GUIDELINES TO TREAT ALL OPERATIONS OF OIL COMPANIES AS SINGLE ENTITY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the oil companies control most of the oil production, the pipelines, the refineries and the distribution outlets, may I ask the minister if he is prepared to amend the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board so that the operation of the oil companies may be treated as a single corporate entity rather than allowing them to increase the prices of their products before any announcement has been made or agreement reached with respect to the wellhead price? The minister says that the decision has already been made. I would ask the minister whether he is prepared to amend
Oral Questions
the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines so that this sort of thing cannot continue in the future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, parliament has, for example, entrusted the surveillance of the tariffs on pipelines to the National Energy Board and the suggestion of the hon. gentleman that their jurisdiction be annulled and placed under the single board is perhaps one which might be reflected upon. Given the relatively slow pace of the anti-inflation legislation in the House up to this point, I am not certain that this could be achieved quickly.


ASSURANCE OF VACCINE FOR SWINE FLU-REASON FOR PREFERENCE FOR IMPORTING VACCINE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reported further outbreak of swine 'flu in Virginia and its probable spread and consequences, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether there has been any firm commitment from manufacturers that we will have the required amount of vaccine for the immunization of Canadian people, not only for the qualified categories, but for all those qualifying on doctor's certificates?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are going on with various foreign sources at the present time. It would be premature to make an announcement in that respect.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister when he can make this statement and whether he has been in touch with the laboratory in Montreal, which can produce up to 300,000 doses, or with the Connaught Laboratory in Toronto, which could set up the machinery very quickly, and speed is of the essence?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have been constantly in touch with the two laboratories concerned and with other sources.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated a preference for importing vaccine rather than producing it in this country. I wonder whether he can give us briefly the reason for that? Is it because the imported vaccine is less costly, or is there some other reason?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons; first of all, costs; second, the capacity to produce the vaccines by the time when we will need them; and third, the safety itself of the vaccines which could be in jeopardy if production in some cases were to be started from scratch.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the minister seems to be saying that Canada cannot produce good vaccine.

April 8, 1976
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Paul Yewchuk: Can the minister give us the figures, in so far as the foreign vaccine is less costly?


Marc Lalonde: Obviously, if the hon. member was unable to understand the first part of my reply, I doubt that he could understand the second.


FINANCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Referring to the last federal-provincial conference of finance ministers, and bearing in mind the proposals made for fiscal arrangements that could be of interest to all provinces, and considering that future proposals dealing with cost-sharing programs could quickly do away with those advantages, would the minister, under those circumstances, be willing to accept the proposal of his Quebec counterpart who would like those discussions to include, in the future a package proposal, more specifically fiscal arrangements and cost-sharing proposals so that the provinces might know exactly what the federal government has in mind?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of discussing the policy concerning equalization and cost-sharing programs. However, I must point out that the provincial premiers did suggest dividing the two subjects and having a discussion on cost-sharing programs with the premiers and another on different issues such as fiscal arrangements with the ministers of finance. I am quite prepared to begin a joint discussion on these matters.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and relates to the proposed sale of a CANDU reactor and nuclear assistance to South Korea. Will the minister inform the House whether the government was aware that an application had been made by the government of South Korea, with a subsequent sale to that government by the Lockheed Corporation of its equipment for the manufacture of solid fuel for rocket motors, and whether there has been any discussion with the government about that sale?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that solid propellant virtually has only two purposes,

either for use in defensive or offensive missiles or rockets for boosting satellites into space, and since there is little likelihood of a space program in South Korea, has the minister checked with the State Department in respect of this sale, and in particular has he knowledge of the protest this week of 119 Congressmen and Senators regarding the growing deterioration in respect of human rights and oppression of the Park regime? Does he feel that the agreements that have in fact been signed with Canada will stand up over time, protecting us from a situation developing similar to that in India?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is a very large question. I thought the hon. member's interest in the subject was dominated by the question of Lockheed. His supplementary question indicates he has other interests, including the danger of nuclear proliferation. I do recall that the particular transaction in respect of rockets was discussed at an earlier stage. At that time we had concluded that there was no particular danger arising either from the possibility of the sale or its integration with any military system in the Republic of Korea. I would be glad to refresh my memory on that particular transaction. The hon. member will recall that the Republic of Korea has dropped its intention, earlier expressed, to acquire a fuel reprocessing plant, in which absence it will not be possible for the Republic of Korea to create a fuel cycle or enter into any type of weapons or explosives program.


ALLEGATION SOUTH KOREA WILL PAY FOR REACTOR WITH TEXTILES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce confirm or deny a statement contained in a report commissioned by the United States Energy Resources Development Agency to the effect that a significant part of the payment to be made by the South Korean government for the CANDU reactor it is purchasing will be in the form of textiles?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question, and I believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did as well. I have not seen that particular document the hon. member refers to, but I would be gald to look at it. To the best of my knowledge there is no commitment or arrangement as to any special consideration for South Korea in terms of textile imports.


THE MINISTRY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that there has been no appointment to the post of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, how
April 8, 1976

does the President of the Privy Council propose to resolve problems arising from the provisions of the Salaries Act?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the question is based on a false assumption.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if there is to be an announcement almost immediately, which is quite possible, it would be very nice if it were made in the House. Given that, contrary to the provisions of Section 25 of the Government Reorganization Act of 1970, there are now more parliamentary secretaries than full ministers listed under Section 4 of the Salaries Act, at least in so far as we know at this moment, can the President of the Privy Council tell us which parliamentary secretary is or was not receiving a salary during the hiatus since the resignation of the hon. member for Papineau, and who will have to pay the money back?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not catch all the words of the question, but I think the hon. gentleman might note that there will be an announcement this afternoon regarding a new minister of consumer affairs.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and relates to the agreement with Cuba last week by Air Canada covering DC-8 aircraft and the training of Cuban pilots, which the Prime Minister said on March 31 had been modified by the government. Will he now table the terms of that agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada comes under the Minister of Transport and I do not believe it is customary for him to table contracts with any Crown corporation, but with his usual tolerance and openmindedness I am sure he will look into this question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will he undertake to inform the House of the terms of the agreement regarding the number of aircraft and the training of pilots?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was not listening to the first part of the question, but, if it referred to the arrangement between Air Canada and Cuba, I will certainly determine whether there is any problem in that regard as far as Air Canada is concerned. I will certainly try to get that information for the hon. member.
Oral Questions


CUBA-PLACE AND DATE OF MINISTERS' PROTEST AGAINST PRESENCE OF TROOPS IN ANGOLA
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Replying to a question from the hon. member for South Shore on March 31, the Prime Minister stated the Secretary of State for External Affairs had publicly protested the presence of Cuban troops in Angola. Would the minister give the place and date of these protests and make the texts available to the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the month was January. The date escapes me for the moment. The place was Jerusalem.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Bearing in mind that this administration when it suits its purpose likes to blame international forces, especially those in the United States, for its economic failures, can the minister explain to the House why his projections of inflation in 1976 are now one half as much again as those revealed by the Treasury Department of the United States and why Canadian forecasts of unemployment are one per cent higher than the United States and yet Canadian real growth is expected to be almost 2 per cent lower than in the United States.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. gentleman that the United States went through about a 6 per cent recession in the past 18 months. If he is advocating that kind of economic future for Canada, I would have to disagree with him.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also for the Minister of Finance. Bearing in mind his comments about a 6 per cent recession in the United States, would the minister indicate if he is aware that Canada's inflation level gap between here and the United States is now 5 points and is growing. This five-point gap in respect of inflation is the highest gap in recorded history between the United States and this country. Could he explain, over and above what he has indicated, why the Americans appear to be containing inflation without controls better than we are with controls.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the hon. gentleman that if he would prefer a 10 per cent rate of unemployment, which the Americans have had during the recession, that of course has a certain affect on inflation.
12616

April 8, 1976
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


VIEW OF MINISTER ON WHETHER FOOD PRICES WILL CONTINUE TO DECLINE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my further supplementary question is to the Minister of Agriculture. With the background of today's inflation figures where food prices are lower but other prices continue to soar and having noted the minister's contention that food is cheap in Canada, would the minister indicate whether he believes that recent food price declines will set the pattern for 1976 or does he expect food prices to rise substantially in the latter part of this year.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, to make a forecast that would be even greater than that of the former Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board would entail having a knowledge greater than that of God.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the minister's responsibility for co-ordinating the efforts of surveillance, search and rescue and in view of the extension of Canada's limits in respect of the 200 mile economic zone which will mean a massive undertaking in order to provide surveillance and search and rescue, would the minister indicate what planning is taking place on an inter-departmental basis for this eventuality and what hardware is being considered as well as any other efforts the departmental committee is taking.


James Armstrong Richardson: Well, Mr. Speaker, to some extent this is hypothetical because we do not yet have a 200-mile limit. However, we very definitely are making plans to adequately cover that limit of 200 miles if it is established, and we will increase the amount of equipment for that purpose.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that at a meeting of the Committee on Fisheries the other day the officials indicated that planning was taking place with regard to the eventuality of the 200-mile limit, would the minister make a statement on motions or ask the House Leader to refer to the committee the whole aspect of the need for capable search and rescue surveillance in Canada so that the matter could be dealt with seriously and so that the planning can take place for the future.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I can reaffirm that the planning is taking place. I will be pleased to announce it as definite and final decisions are taken.


FISHERIES
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries).
In drafting future regulations on seal hunting, does the minister intend to let himself be impressed by the lucubrations of a former movie star seeking to regain lost popularity? Everybody, you included, has recognized that I am referring to Brigitte Bardot.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is my responsibility to determine what has been lost and what could be regained. On the other hand, I believe I must say that those who protest against this sort of quite legitimate activity on the part of our Canadian fishermen, if they want to be consistent with themselves, should refrain from eating meat, wearing clothes and shoes, and so on.


INQUIRY AS TO MEASURES TO EXTEND FOOD INSPECTION SYSTEM
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could the minister tell the House whether, following the crime commission investigation on the matter of tainted meat which took place last fall, new steps have been taken to expand the inspection service under the Food and Drugs Act and, if so, could he tell the House what are those steps the government has seen fit to take to protect the health of Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but could the hon. member repeat his question, for I did not hear it?


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would like to know whether, following the investigation of the Commission of Inquiry on Organized Crime, new steps have been taken respecting inspection under the Food and Drugs Act, whether new inspectors have been appointed to protect the health of Canadians so that the situation of last fall does not recur.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already tabled in the House, several months ago, the answer to that question. It will be found in the House of Commons
Hansard.
April 8, 1976


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday we learned that not only did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development act in bad faith toward the Inuit Tapirisat by not consulting with them about exploration on land now the subject of land claims negotiations, but also that the minister responsible was not even aware that his department had taken action. Today we learned that an official of the Canadian Wildlife Service has not prosecuted companies under environment protection regulations for fear of damaging the political sensibilities of his minister. Please, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister to take some action to ensure that his ministers and senior civil servants operate according to his government's policy and especially make sure that these two ministers smarten up.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Can the minister tell the House if the negotiations are still under way between his departmental officials and those responsible for the Quebec government with respect to the transfer of an hospital under Quebec jurisdiction in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue? If so, because of the representations made against that transfer by the Quebec branch of the Canadian Legion, does the minister think negotiations will be successful anyway?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, negotiations are being carried out between our department and the department responsible in the province of Quebec. They are progressing very well. So far as the termination date is concerned it is quite difficult to tell you that because negotiations are such that sometimes they take considerable time and sometimes when one makes an announcement previous to decisions being made it does not work out too well.
With regard to the Legion and their input into this, they have sent resolutions to my department concerning the transfer of hospitals in Quebec, but my answer to you, Sir, is that we have a policy in the government for transferring hospitals and the reason we have the policy is that we see that in the long run it is more beneficial to veterans, because if we leave the situation as it is presently, in a few years from now we would have nothing but geriatric and nursing case patients and it would be quite impossible to hold people with proper training to look after these patients.
Privilege-Mr. Yewchuk NORTHERN AFFAIRS


IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF TASK FORCE ON PROBLEMS OF BUSINESSMEN IN NORTH OBTAINING CONTRACTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. A short time ago the minister indicated that his department has taken steps to implement some ten of the 42 recommendations and subrecommendations of the task force which was formed to study the problems encountered by businessmen in the north in obtaining government contracts. Can the minister advise the House whether he has taken steps to implement the remainder of the recommendations. I am wondering in particular if he has implemented the recommendation with regard to the bid bond differential.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting in Yellowknife on April 26 to discuss the outstanding recommendations on which we have not been able to reach agreement. I think there are approximately eight to which we said no and several of the recommendations as mentioned by the hon. member were accepted. On the balance we are going to have further discussions on April 26, and amongst these is the one dealing with the bid bond differential.


PERMITS FOR PIPELINES-SUGGESTED REQUIREMENT THAT STAGING AREAS BE CLOSE TO LARGER COMMUNITIES
Douglas Charles Neil: Bearing in mind the minister's interest in the economy of the north, has he plans when considering applications for a land use permit for a pipeline, that it will be a requirement before a permit is granted that the staging areas will be either in, or in close proximity to, some of the larger communities in order that the northerners will benefit?


J. Judd Buchanan: The representations on this have been made by the mayor of Hay River. There is a proper procedure under which NTCL makes application for permit, and that proper procedure is being followed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Outstanding before the House is an alleged question of privilege by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) to which a number of hon. members have contributed. I thought I might indicate to the House that unless this is inconvenient to members, I propose to bring down a ruling tomorrow.
21804-37'/;!

April 8, 1976
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the government House leader his intentions with respect to business of the House until the Easter adjournment which he has announced, bearing in mind that we really have only one full parliamentary day left. Would the minister consider bringing forward Bill C-81 dealing with members' salaries and allowances so that we could deal with this matter, unless, of course, it would upset the carefully laid plot in the Liberal caucus with respect to that bill which suddenly came awry.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might put before the House the government's plans for the rest of the session until the Easter adjournment. On the question of Bill C-81,
I would like to have an opportunity to talk to the House leaders before the end of the week and on other measures that are still outstanding.
The debate on second reading of Bill C-83 will be continued until Monday, when the allotted time comes to an end. On Tuesday and Wednesday it is our intention to deal with Bill C-20 and Bill S-31 and, of course, the motion to adjourn. There has been some discussion among the House leaders that if there is necessity for a recorded vote following the completion of second reading of Bill C-83, it would take place at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday. I hope that can be made an order of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council in respect of a possible vote on second reading of Bill C-83. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. Peters:: It seems to me that when we have a closure motion, the government should not really expect any kind of consideration from hon. members with regard to the varying of the time of the order which already has written into it the time allowed for the consideration of the bill. If we as members are being asked for such consideration, then I suggest the House leader should no longer put forward closure motions which in any case would probably not have been necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: For the sake of the regularity of proceeed-ings, I take it the House has already pronounced itself on the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council, and the hon. member for Timiskaming was speaking on a separate and general point of order.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order. I ask for clarification. I asked a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and received an answer with which I was well satisfied. I then attempted to ask the same type of question of the Minister of the Environment. I varied the wording slightly because I wanted to make it clear that as a result of a couple of short conversations with both these hon. gentlemen, I was aware of the fact that they had no knowledge of some of the matters referred to by the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Commerce. The Minister of the Environment seemed to want to respond to my question and I wonder if he might now be given an opportunity to indicate whether he wishes to put something on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, I have ruled on the general nature of the question. I invited the hon. member to rephrase his question to make it more specific because, as I recall, the hon. member had put a question asking the minister to describe to the House the involvement of himself or his staff or officials in the Sky Shops affair. That was the language of the question, I believe. It seems to me that it might very well call for a very short answer on the part of the minister; but if the answer is in the positive, it might be far too general in nature to be included, and I cannot wait for the answer to find out whether it would be suitable under the regulations. That is why I did not rule the question out, but I asked the hon. member to be more specific.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question is so important that I think members who are questioning ministers should understand the rules. I was rather interested in your refusal, sir, to allow the question of the hon. member for Central Nova. It seemed to me quite appropriate for a member to ask a minister to answer a question with respect to the operations of his department or his staff regarding almost any matter, whether or not under his jurisdiction. I wonder if Your Honour is, in fact, saying that we cannot ask questions of ministers with respect to the acts of members of their departments which may be regarding matters not under the minister's jurisdiction, and whether the minister is not responsible for the acts of his departmental officials and staff. I would be interested to have Your Honour's guidance with respect to whether or not we can ask questions of ministers in that general area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That consideration was not involved in the difficulty with that question. Although both questions, the one to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the one to the Minister of the Environment concerned the responsibilities of the ministers on which they no longer report to parliament, that was not part of the difficulty. The difficulty was simply that the question was too general in nature.
The difficulty which the hon. member raises may be another separate one, but until we face this specific incident I do not think I should generalize.


PRIVILEGE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
My question of privilege is based on one of our Standing Orders. I wish to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that since the Standing Orders of the House have been changed, the motions moved under the provisions of
April 8, 1976

Standing Order 43 must be moved as soon as the House opens, or between two o'clock and 2:15.
Since this procedure has been introduced, I have noticed that motions moved under the provisions of Standing Order 43 are much more serious and concern much more than before matters which require the immediate attention of the House.
However, government members still have the habit of voting systematically against any motion made under Standing Order 43 by the opposition without identifying themselves, which is not always in the best interest of the population. What is more disillusioning, Mr. Speaker, for the reader of Hansard, is that he cannot know which member objected to the motion, and that does not do justice to the hon. member who did so.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to an important part of our Standing Orders, Standing Order 28, which reads as follows:
28. Every member desiring to speak is to rise in his place, uncoveredthis is a bit obsolete because no one wears a hat these days-
-and address himself to Mr. Speaker.
However, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of democracy itself and out of respect for our institution, I respectfully submit that any hon. member who wishes to speak in this House and whose intervention aims at justifying a ruling of the Speaker must comply with Standing Order 28 and ask for permission to speak, even if it is only to object to the moving of a motion by simply saying no.
Mr. Speaker, earlier today I moved a motion on a very important and urgent matter, as it had to do with thousands of industrial milk producers. Unanimous consent was refused by an hon. member, but from reading Hansard tomorrow nobody will know who he was, and yet he did take the floor.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford:
That members of this House be required to comply with Standing Order 28, even when opposing or seconding a motion moved under Standing Order 43.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) certainly brought up very interesting and important points with regard to the interpretation of our Standing Orders and procedures. It is not a question of privilege but a mere matter of procedure. It might be well to explain, first of all, that it is not a matter of getting the floor, pursuant to Standing Order 28, but merely of presenting a motion, without expressing agreement with it. That is an entirely different matter, because there is no question of discussion it. A motion was put merely before the House, under Standing Order 43, which requires unanimous consent of the House. If there is not unanimous consent, a single dissident vote suffices to to prove it. Interpretation of Standing Order 28 therefore constitutes not a question of privilege but a matter of procedure. That problem could perhaps be looked into by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
Privilege-Mr. A. Lambert


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of the question period I asked a question of the government House leader with respect to the problem which seems to have arisen out of the fact that if the Salaries Act is to be observed, there is in fact one parliamentary secretary who has been paid-at least, it would appear that way-and therefore sits as a member of this House improperly drawing upon the revenues and resources of the Crown as a result of the resignation of the hon. member for Papineau. I am not sure of the date with respect to that.


Mr. Nielsen:: Tuesday, March 16, 1976.


Walter David Baker: I understand now that it was Tuesday, March 16. The President of the Privy Council, in his answer to the question, indicated that there is likely to be the appointment of a minister later in the day. I ask your Honour, at your leisure, to look at section 25(2) of the Parliamentary Secretaries Act under the Government Organization Act, 1970, dealing with parliamentary secretaries. It provides:
There shall not be at any one time more parliamentary secretaries than the number of ministers who hold offices for which salaries are provided in section 4 of the Salaries Act.
If my figures are correct-and it is subject to correction-there are 27 parliamentary secretaries and 26 ministers to whom this would apply.


Mr. Blais:: One minister has two portfolios.


Walter David Baker: The question then arises: What happens beyond this day if there is a minister who holds two portfolios, as indeed I suspect one additional minister of the Crown might, at perhaps around four o clock or thereabouts, or whenever these ceremonies take place and wherever they take place?


An hon. Member:: Don't you know?


Walter David Baker: My time will come, I hope. In any event, there may well be one minister holding two portfolios. I ask the Chair to look into that as a possible solution to the problem. However, I respectfully point out that the way section 25 reads, it would appear that the number of portfolios a particular minister holds does not matter, but what is important is the number of ministers. I have not addressed myself very much to that secondary point, but I think there is a real point to be investigated. I am sure the government House leader would want it investigated because if a minister is sworn in today either as an acting minister or a minister holding two portfolios, in my respectful submission since March 16 there would have been paid out of the revenues of Canada a parliamentary secretary's indemnity to one too many parliamentary secretaries.
I am not sure who it would be or how it would be figured out, but I think the point is there and I am sure the government House leader joins me in wanting to have this matter cleared up.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. member for drawing this matter to our attention so early. In the event he might be right-and

April 8, 1976
Privilege-Mr. A. Lambert
I am not granting him any rectitude in this regard-he probably will have saved some hon. member on this side some difficulty. I simply point out that with reference to the parliamentary secretary who has carried the responsibilities of consumer and corporate affairs, Your Honour and hon. members opposite will recognize that his responsibilities have increased substantially, and there ought to be no attempt on the part of the opposition to try to subtract any salary from that person.
I point out, as well, that perhaps the hon. member opposite has not recognized that the Prime Minister is also part of the cabinet and is a minister. In addition, quite apart from any announcement that might be made today, tomorrow or in the future, we have at the present time one minister with two portfolios, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of State for Science and Technology, and he has two parliamentary secretaries working on his behalf.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that this matter ought to be looked into and that there should be a report back to the House about it. However, with respect, I disagree with my hon. friend's suggestion that Your Honour should be called upon to rule on this. This is a point of law and it is the same sort of thing we had a few days ago. If the point is reached when Your Honour has to decide what pay to give members of the House, you will be busier than ever. It seems to me that it is for the government to look into the matter, or for the Auditor General, or for the courts, but not for Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: I would, perhaps with unseemly haste, agree at least in a preliminary way with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I was, throughout these remarks, asking myself what responsibility I have. There is perhaps an administrative matter involved on the part of the House for which I do have some responsibility, but, again, I suspect that the responsibility lies elsewhere. However, the matter has been referred to and it will certainly be examined to see whether there are any responsibilities so far as the Chair, on a point of order, is concerned. Perhaps I shall have something more to say about it at a later time.


Mr. Rondeau:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, the hon. member for Bellechasse raised a question of privilege which you considered as being a procedural matter and I would perhaps be ready to agree. But just the same it is disappointing on this side of the House and I would humbly ask you to consider the matter so that we on this side of the House may refrain from moving motions under Standing Order 43. On the other hand, it cannot be expected that members of this side will object. I remember quite well that on many occasions I saw persons in the galleries saying yes or no and I do not see how those words can be ascribed to members when they come from the galleries

but are considered as part of our proceedings. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to study this question so that the individual or the member of the House who wishes to oppose a motion moved under Standing Order 43 may identify himself and we may know for sure what he has said, a "no" generally, when he opposed a motion under Standing Order 43, that he has really said those words while participating in the debates of the House and that they have not been said by someone in the galleries.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important matter because words from people we cannot identify because they are not members of this House on extremely important questions often raised by motions moved under Standing Order 43 could make this House look rather ridiculous.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question put by the House leader of the official opposition to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) who is at the same time the government House leader.
Considering that Bill C-84, which has not yet been presented to the House and is still at the first reading stage, seems to be the cause of considerable delays in the House because of very lengthy discussions, could the President of the Privy Council tell the House if there will be special meetings of the House leaders concerning Bill C-84 so that we can reach agreement without having to refer to Standing Order 75A, 75B or 75C? If that is not possible, when will these meetings be held? Could we delay the study of Bill C-84 until next fall so we may celebrate the Saint-Jean-Baptiste, the holiday of French Canadians, as well as Confederation Day so that this House might be adjourned during those two weeks?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, this is one of the bills that I should like to discuss with the House leaders. I am trying to arrange a meeting for tomorrow and I hope my hon. friend will be present at that time. There is fairly long agenda before us to the end of June, and I share his wish that we should dispose of this business before then. He said that he hoped we would not use Standing Order 75A, B or C on Bill C-84. I certainly had not contemplated anything of that kind. I had hoped, however, that there would be a disposition on the part of the House leaders and the House generally to find some way in which we can debate Bill C-84, have an expression of all points of view and come to a decision within a reasonable time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on this question, perhaps one point we might agree on is to reduce the length of speeches.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services-Mr. MacLean.
April 8, 1976
[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments-Mr. McCleave.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(1), I wish to table, in both official languages, the Law Reform Commission report on expropriation.


CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTIES ACT
A. Daniel McKenzie: for leave to introduce Bill C-433, to amend the Combines Investigation Act, to provide for the standardization of warranties, and to define the minimum provisions thereof.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act to provide for the standardization of warranties and to define the minimum provisions thereof. All too often, the consumer purchases an automobile, refrigerator or any one of hundreds of products covered by warranty, only to have the product break down. When the consumer reads the warranty's fine print, he discovers that the document is so filled with exceptions and qualifications that the warranty is almost useless. This bill will correct these anomalies.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: 4,575, 4,985 and 5,130.


Mr. MacKay: What branch of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is responsible for reviewing and granting subsidies to companies which own fishing draggers?
Measures Against Crime


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: in so far as Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: The Transportation Industries Branch gives subsidies to shipbuilders, including some who build draggers, but does not grant subsidies to companies which own fishing draggers.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has legislation amending the National Transportation Act been drafted and, if so, when will it be presented to the House?
2.	Is it intended that the Minister's Strategic Planning Officers' recommendations and findings, if any, will be (a) converted into amendments in the framework of the legislation (b) included in the proposed legislation?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Legislation amending the National Transportation Act is currently being drafted and it will be introduced in the House during the next session.
2. (a) Yes; (b) yes.


Mr. Orlikow: What is the cost to the government in (a) salary (b) office rental (c) supplies (d) telephones (e) support services for each employee in the SX category?


Mitchell William Sharp: The information requested is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply in its entirety, would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the accounts of every department, which would be exorbitant or prohibitive.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 7, 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. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, how many times have we heard the saying, "Don't choose a book by its cover". The truth of the matter is that frequently when the content is weak, the publisher tries to enhance the appeal by putting on an attractive cover. Such is the case with this peace and security legislation which

April 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
we are debating today, and its companion piece dealing with capital punishment. Never, since I have been a member, have I seen legislation introduced in such a beautiful jacket-beautifully stylized and in three colours. When we open up this beautiful jacket, we find that all the material is nicely tucked into two separate pockets in the folder. Inside these two nicely designed pockets we find two bills and three sets of explanatory notes, one entitled "Press Release", one entitled "Highlights of the Peace and Security Legislation" and the last entitled, "Explanatory Notes". If we read all these supporting documents to the legislation, we find in fact that they merely paraphrase each other and sometimes the paragraphs are actually identical. I can only come to the conclusion that the government is trying to impress and "snow" the media, legislators and the public.
Throughout the government's con game they keep saying that they are going to stiffen or lengthen the penalties for certain violent crimes in order to give peace and security to Canadians. This Mr. Speaker, is all so much windowdressing because, in fact, the government has in its so-called peace and security legislation weakened, rather than strengthened, the areas dealing with d? erous offenders or habitual criminals in that they have w. d out the habitual criminal and dangerous sexual offender sections in favour or their new section on dangerous offenders. They have, in fact, lessened the severity of the law for many in exchange for a very moderate strengthening of the law for a few, those few who could still have come under the severe restrictions of the law which the government is repealing.
At the same time, the government talks about life sentences as an indication of its determination to be severe with murderers, and that it is interested in protecting the peace and security of Canada. The government does not say that in its new, so-called strengthened legislation a murderer, under certain circumstances, could still get out, completely paroled, in seven years from the date of conviction.
In having to package these two bills in such a beautiful jacket with the three pieces of explanatory notes, the government is trying to dupe Canadians. All parliament needed was the bills. We did not need the expensive jacket and we did not need the three sets of explanatory notes. Surely, this is not government restraint, because the jacket alone would probably cost $1 for each one, and I do not know how many thousands the government has given out. I guess when the government is concerned that the content is so weak, they really believe that if you put on an attractive, appealing cover you can sell the story inside. The government appears to have gone out to sell this legislation, because not only have they used the above physical means, but they have also introduced the timeworn idea of a catch-phrase, just like in an election where you use nice pamphlets and a neat slogan. The catch-phrase here is "peace and security". Now, who in their right mind could ever disagree with that?
"Peace" is a word with a meaning so elusive that man has been chasing it like the Holy Grail, but has never found it. Everybody in Canada wants peace. I dare say everybody in the world wants peace. So, naturally, we agree with that part of the slogan. Peace! A nice idea; I

would like to have it. The second word is "security". Again, everybody in Canada would like to have security. I believe everybody in the world would like to have security. Therefore, we agree that security is nice. Put the two together, "peace and security", and we have the best of all possible worlds. We all want peace. We all want security. Let's buy the package.
Then on the cover the government puts "Protection Against Violent Crime". Now, nobody in their right mind is in favour of crime. Even more so, everyone abhors violent crime. This legislation is now, according to the printing on the front cover, going to give us protection against violent crime. It certainly is slick. We cannot disagree with the words used. But do these words really tell us what the legislation is all about? No. The government calls for protection against violent crime, but how do we protect against violent crime with this legislation? To protect us against violent crime we must wipe out the root causes slums and lack of education-and we should encourage rehabilitation, reorientation. This will help protect us: the giving out of longer sentences, which only comes after the fact of a violent crime, not taking guns after the fact of a violent crime. Perhaps that phrase "protection against violent crime" is a little misleading.
Similarly, the government flogs the idea that, as a major portion of this legislation, they are advocating gun control. With the increase in violent crime, the increase in murder, the increase in the use of weapons in crime, especially guns, most people are presently in favour of gun control. I am in favour of gun control. I believe that everybody in this House is probably in favour of gun control. However, when we start to define what gun control is, we find that not everybody is in agreement.
Today we are dealing with the first bill in this sweet little package, Bill C-83. This deals with: gun control, prison breaks, wiretapping, dangerous offenders, crime inquiries, and parole and sentencing. I object to government's introducing omnibus bills in a package such as this. As a legislator, I may be anxious to support one or more portions of the six in this package and, at the same time, wish to vote against one or more portions. By introducing all of these in one package, it is impossible for the individual member of parliament to cast a vote on each of the serious proposals in this legislation. By putting them in a package or omnibus bill, the government wants an "all or nothing" situation.
In my view, the good which I might like to support might be lost with the bad. It's like the old phrase of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Or, if the bill passes, we are going to incorporate what I believe may be bad law into the statute books along with what might be good law. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I support the motion of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) which would be to try to sever the lengthy gun control section of some 38 pages of the 73-page bill away from the rest of the bill. I am sure most of the serious legislators in this chamber would prefer to have had shorter bills-one bill for each of the topics encompassed by this omnibus bill. If that had been done, I am sure the non-controversial sections would have been passed and would now be law; while we could give a more in-depth consideration
April 8, 1976

to those areas where people are concerned that the law is not as well drafted as one might hope.
I would now like to deal with some of the substantive aspects of Bill C-83. The first major proposal is that of gun control. I believe the vast majority of Canadians are in favour of gun control, but when one reads this legislation one is entitled to have serious reservations. I believe in gun control which is clear, defined and definable, I am not happy with the legislative proposals I find in this bill.
I believe the criminal law should be spelled out clearly in the Criminal Code, I believe that any person who wants to know what the criminal law of this country is should be able to go and look in the Criminal Code and read it. I do not believe, as this legislation proposes, that the criminal law should be changed by delegating powers to the governor in council, the commissioner of the RCMP, the attorney-general of the ten provinces, or the minister of justice.
If we follow the route of delegation of powers through the passing of regulations as proposed by the legislation before us, it will be impossible for persons to know what the Criminal Code really is, because they will have to buy not only the Criminal Code but also a book of regulations, which might be another 50 or 60 pages in length and which will always be in a state of change and flux as the governor in council, the commissioner of the RCMP, the attorneys-general of the various provinces, or the minister of justice may amend, alter, repeal or add new regulations, all at various times.
The greatest concern I have with the proposal of gun control as put forth in this legislation is that it is not set out clearly in black and white in the Criminal Code. I believe that criminal law, being a penal law, must be interpreted strictly, as the courts have done in the past, and that for it to be strictly interpreted it is only fair that the citizens of the country should have an easy opportunity of finding out what that law is. I believe we can only do that by having it set out in one place, that is, in the Criminal Code of Canada. If the government insists on going by the regulatory route and the delegating of powers, I believe the criminal law will become unreadable, that people will tend to ignore it and that it will become a nightmare to enforce.
Bad law, unmanageable law, is probably worse than having no law at all, because if people ignore the law it brings the entire system of law enforcement and administration of justice into disrepute. I believe the gun control section of this proposed legislation is bad law because of the granting of regulatory powers and the delegating of powers. I plead with the government to encompass all the proposed gun control legislation in the Criminal Code. If a form is to be used, I would suggest that the section dealing with the form should indicate that a certificate must be filled out as per form A in appendix 1 and we should put a sample form A in appendix 1 at the back of the code.
I would hope that if, because of some oversight or some housekeeping measure that needs to be taken from time to time, need arises to correct or to make for better implementation of the law, a short bill could be introduced asking to alter the form in appendix 1 or to alter the various sections. I would hope that in the sections dealing
Measures Against Crime
with the type of person who could grant a certificate or be the registrar of firearms, or could be the guarantor of an applicant, appropriate lists could be set out in the Criminal Code. If this is not found to be sufficient after some experimentation, then one or more of those on the lists could be deleted, or one or more added by a fast amendment to the Criminal Code passed in the normal way through the House of Commons and the Senate. I believe the criminal law is too important to be delegated to others and that amendments and changes should be made only by parliament itself.
In the present proposed legislation on gun control, there are some 27 clauses or subclauses which give regulatory power to the governor in council, the commissioner of the RCMP, the attorneys-general, or the minister of justice, and in one case the proposed legislation provides for the balkanization of our Criminal Code by allowing the attorneys-general of the various provinces to pass amendments. We could have ten different regulations passed by the ten different provinces, all providing penalties under the Criminal Code, so that a person would not know what the Criminal Code actually is as he moves from one province to another. In a more substantive manner, I am concerned that certain regulations which this legislation proposes could, in effect, be made by the governor in council without obtaining the authorization of parliament and could change the very intent of the law.
In this bill, parliament is asked to classify certain weapons as prohibited weapons, and certain other weapons, such as hand-guns, as restricted weapons. Then, parliament is asked to allow the governor in council to change hand-guns from restricted weapons to prohibited weapons by order in council. I do not believe parliament is really intending to prohibit hand-guns at this time. If parliament wants to wipe out hand-guns-and there are advocates of that course-then let us do so now, in parliament, by voting that way. If, on the other hand, as I believe, parliament is not prohibiting hand-guns now then the governor in council should not be allowed to prohibit them later. If it is deemed that hand-guns should be prohibited, the legislation should be brought forth in parliament so that parliament itself can decide that point.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent some time explaining my abhorrence of the fact that the government wants to introduce massive amounts of delegation of powers to regulatory bodies into the criminal code. It strikes me that the government will make this part of the proposed legislation unwieldy, difficult to understand and will be inviting the public at large to ignore the law. The public at large to which I am referring, is the law-abiding public who would be using firearms for legal purposes. By passing legislation such as proposed, we would be placing a roadblock in the path of their carrying on legitimate, legal activities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the penal aspects of the proposed gun control legislation as they would affect persons who are obviously not carrying firearms for legal and legitimate purposes. Since the revision of the Criminal Code in 1955 which reduced it from well over 1,000 sections to some 600 sections, we have heard that there should be no minimum sentences in penal law but that it should be left to the discretion of the judge to pass sentence based on the circumstances of the case. In
12624

April 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
section 98(1) we find the government introduces a minimum one-year sentence if a person is convicted of using an offensive weapon to assist in the commission of a criminal act or to escape from a criminal act. This legislation breaks that principle. I believe it is proper for the government to propose minimum sentences in the area of gun control when a person is using firearms for blatantly illegal purposes. Frankly, I believe the one-year minimum sentence under section 98(1) should be longer. But to put real teeth into the matter, I feel that a person should be brought to trial on this section at or before he or she is brought to trial on the substantive offence he or she committed.
I say that the prosecution, under section 98(1) should be brought at the same time, or before, so that we can avoid plea-bargaining in what is obviously a serious situation by present standards. If the prosecution were forced to proceed with section 98(1) before, or at the same time as the substantive offence, It would avoid the accused pleading guilty to the substantive offence and getting an agreement from the Crown to drop or withdraw the charge of using an offensive weapon while committing that offence. This procedure, Mr. Speaker, could easily be introduced into the Criminal Code, and I would recommend that the government consider it.
As a former Crown attorney, and knowing what pleabargaining is all about, I can assure you that in the crowded courts of today the accused and his lawyer will refuse any consideration of pleading guilty and will threaten to go into a lengthy trial in order to force the Crown to drop one or more charges. Knowing the log-jams before the courts today, I think everyone will agree that it is an enticing proposition for Crown counsel to accept a plea to the substantive charge in order to drop what has heretofore been thought of as the lesser charge; for example, the possession of a firearm while commiting the substantive offence.
I would now like to deal with sentences for other offences in the gun control sections. In order to try to impress everybody on how serious the government is about dealing with gun control sentences, the government has proposed that the maximum sentence be moved up to 5 years in jail, when previously it was 2 years, and has proposed to increase to 10 years in jail the maximum sentence for all those offences where previously it was 5 years. On the other hand, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the old maximums of 2 years and 5 years were rarely ordered by any judge, and that increasing the maximum and failing to put on a minimum is really just a bit of windowdressing, because the new maximums of 5 years and 10 years will never be ordered by a judge. In each of the sections where the government proposes increasing the maximum sentence for these weapons-related offences, I would suggest that a maximum of six months should be included, if in fact the government is really interested in putting teeth into the law respecting gun control.
Further, Mr. Speaker, one aspect of gun control, or lack or gun control, which for many years has horrified society in the North American environment is the prospect of guns being purchased by mail order. Certain sections of the present legislation allow firearms to be ordered by the mail order method, including the ordering by mail or restricted

guns or hand-guns. I suggest that the government would enhance the feeling of security of most Canadians, and would not unduly be infringing upon the rights of those who wish to use firearms for legitimate purposes, if the mail ordering of guns was eliminated. Believe the majority of our people would be quite willing to wipe out the so-called mail order sales of these potentially dangerous weapons. If a person is so keen on a certain type of gun, then I suggest that person can travel if necessary to a centre where he can purchase that gun, or he can arrange for his nearest gun shop or hardware store to order it, so that he can purchase it over the counter, going through all the necessary precautions as is the usual case in firearm purchases.
Again, Mr. Speaker, if the government is really serious in controlling the misuse of firearms, etc., it will change the discretionary order a judge can make prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms or ammunition under section 102(1) to a compulsory order of prohibition, to force people to abide by the law for fear of losing their rights. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the same section, 102(1), of this bill, should include allowing a judge to pass an order of prohibition respecting any person convicted of a violent crime even though the crime may not be related to firearms or ammunition. A person so misguided and capable of using violence without the assistance of a firearm is surely just as capable of using a firearm in the carrying out of his or her intention, with the prospects of even more violent consequences to follow.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I have a few more comments dealing with the section on guarantors. I do not like it. It indicates that a person who wants to have a licence to possess guns would have to have two guarantors who had known the applicant for at least two years, and these guarantors would be on a list of persons to be set forth in the future by regulation. I suggest that those persons should be listed in this section now, and if amendments need to be made later, that can be arranged. I also believe that provisions should be made for statutory declarations, much like we have for a person in order to get a passport, in the case where a person has just moved into an area and would not have known two people for the required two-year period who could act as guarantors.


William Warren Allmand: That is provided for.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I have not seen it, and I have read through this section three times. Perhaps this is to come in the form of regulation.


William Warren Allmand: It is in the law.


Paul Wyatt Dick: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should say that the present section 101(B), covering the use of another person's firearm under the direct supervision of the owner, should be incorporated into the present legislation. Thus, persons who may be carrying out target practise with pistols could exchange hand-guns for target practise shots. Perhaps it could also be developed so that a father could supervise his son in the training and use of firearms. In essence, Mr. Speaker, the legislation dealing with gun control, as proposed, puts an onerous burden of control, restriction and regulation on the legitimate and lawful user of firearms by means of regulation, licences, permits,
April 8, 1976

certificates, etc., but does not in any way come to grips by means of deterrence or punishment with those who would unlawfully use firearms in contravention of the rules set forth in the legislation.
I do not like the delegation of power to the governor in council, the commissioner of the RCMP, the attorneys-gen-eral of the provinces, the minister of justice, or local registrars to set out the regulations and conditions for the giving of various permits, licences, certificates, registration forms, and so on. Similarly, I do not like the fact that the forms are not set out precisely in this legislation, rather, there is a declaration that they will be announced. I strongly believe that the forms should be in an appendix attached to the Criminal Code so that people will have certainty in the knowledge of what these forms will require. Last, I do not like the fact that conditions will be announced which can be changed in the future without the knowledge of the person who is a legitimate user of guns. I suggest that the necessary conditions should be set out in this legislation and that perhaps only in exceptional, proven cases could a further condition be imposed by a local registrar.
Mr. Speaker, there are more aspects to this bill than just gun control. I would like now to deal with some of those other topics. Section 5 of this bill deals with prisoners trying to escape, or persons who would assist a prisoner to escape. It increases the maximum sentence from five years to ten years. Again, Mr. Speaker, if the government were really interested in security and in giving people a sense of security, I suggest that it would be a step in the right direction if there were a minimum sentence of, say, two years in order to try to deter prisoners from breaking jail or to deter persons from assisting a prisoner to break jail.
The increase from five years to ten years, as the maximum sentence under this section is, is in itself a bit of a laugh. I do not believe that in recent years any person has been given the maximum sentence of the present five-year term. If this is so-and I would look forward to the Solicitor General's comments on this-it seems obvious that it is unlikely that increasing the maximum to ten years will result in any great number of long-term sentences being handed out, as the perpetrators of these proposals intimate. I will be asking the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in committee the number of charges laid under this section in each of the past five years, along with the sentences given to each person duly convicted.
Included in this omnibus bill are sections dealing with what is commonly called wiretapping. In this bill the government attempts to go back to the original bill which it presented in 1973, and to repeal or wipe out the amendments proposed and made law that year. Some people will say that these amendments will give the police too wide powers and that by suggesting these amendments the government is undermining the civil liberties of the individual. The amending of section 178.16 to allow as evidence at a trial the direct or indirect evidence gained by a wiretap, even though the wiretap is illegal, will assist in strengthening the efforts of the law enforcement agencies and will thus enhance the security of law-abiding persons.
Measures Against Crime
However, I believe that this alone might open the door for law enforcement agencies to go ahead and use illegal wiretaps on a rather frequent basis, rather than go through the administrative procedure of getting proper authorization. For this reason, I believe the widening of this power to introduce evidence from illegal or improper wiretaps should be counterbalanced with a clause to the effect that in any case where the wiretap is proven or shown to have been made without due authorization, the presiding judge should be required to order the person responsible for the illegal or improper wiretap to be charged under the appropriate section of the Criminal Code.
The fact is that by bringing in this rule of evidence and making it statutory, the government is making the rule of evidence as it applies to wiretapping conform to the rule of evidence dealing with statements improperly or illegally obtained. The essence of the matter is that the improper or illegal statement or wiretap is only available if it is shown that the evidence it divulges is true. I, quite frankly, am happy that our rules of evidence in this country in these matters are substantially different from those applicable in the United States, where I believe the legislatures and the courts have gone overboard in giving the criminal rights, to the detriment of the law-abiding citizen.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed in principle to the extension of the wiretapping powers to give the appropriate law-enforcing agencies their chance at intercepting, proving and hence stopping crime. But I do believe that in giving these broader powers we should also set up some countervailing powers such as I have indicated. Similarly, in order to keep strong these counterbalancing powers, I would be, in principle, against the repeal of section 178.23 which sets out that notice is to be given to each person subjected to a wiretap.
However, I would, in order to assist the police in ongoing investigations of a lengthy nature, support an amendment to existing section 178.23(1B) which would indicate that a judge has a further discretionary power to adjourn the giving of notice, sine die if necessary, in exceptional cases based on strong evidence that the giving of notice as contemplated by the section would not be in the interests of justice, or probably would only serve as notification to criminals that their on going criminal activity was being monitored. The only further proviso I would add to adjourning sine die the giving of notice would be that all notices must be given when a person becomes charged with any of the offences under surveillance during the period of the wiretap. So, Mr. Speaker, I would not mind supporting the wiretapping amendments contemplated giving enlarged powers to law enforcement officers if this were balanced by reasonable caution in order to protect the civil liberties of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to address myself to the new section of the Criminal Code proposed by this bill which is to deal with so-callled dangerous offenders. The dangerous offenders part of the Criminal Code will wipe out the existing preventive detention, habitual criminal and dangerous sexual offender sections, and in my view will water down and severely weaken the present law. The government has advertised that it intends to strengthen
2 1804 - 38/4

April 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
the legislation to provide for peace and security and to provide for protection against violent crime. This may be so, although I doubt it. But at the same time, sections of the Criminal Code will be wiped out which would better protect society if enforced than the sections which are to be introduced.
To begin with, the definition indicates that the new offences which can be prosecuted under the dangerous offenders part being introduced will be offences for which a person must be liable to imprisonment for five years or more. Thus, we see that the new standard is an offence of ten years' imprisonment, whereas the present standard is one of five years' imprisonment. Thus, on the face of it, it does not appear that the government is making prison sentences more severe for these so-called dangerous criminals, although it has announed that it is doing this as part of a great package on peace and security.
At the same time, the new proposals allow for the imprisonment of persons convicted of certain sex-related crimes, but are significantly weaker in this regard than the present law, in that one of the sex crimes covered by the present law which is applicable to dangerous sex offenders is dropped and applications for preventive detention for an indefinite period for attempts to commit certain sex offences are dropped. The present law covers the sex offences enumerated and any attempts to commit those offences. The new law proposed covers only sexual offences if they are committed, but does not cover the possibility of making application respecting persons who attempt to commit those effences but fail. Obviously, the present law is much stronger than the proposed law in this regard. Under the new proposed dangerous offenders section, it appears that the criminal is only a dangerous offender if he is successful in raping his victim, whereas if he is caught in the act and does not have time to complete it, or is unsuccessful in completing the rape and therefore has only attempted it, he becomes a non-dangerous offender. This is a ridiculous situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is ther unanimous consent?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I do not wish to continue.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-83, the crime prevention bill presented by my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). As Solicitor General, my prime goal and that of all the agencies working within the Ministry of the Solicitor General is to protect the public against crime, and especially violent crime. For this reason I support these measures, which were worked out in close co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Ministry of the Solicitor General, because all the measures included in the bill have been designed to further the goal of better protection for the public.
Furthermore, many of the specific items proposed in this bill will be implemented or administered by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I refer especially to the amend-

ments to the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to the regulative and administrative changes which will flow from those amendments, but also, of course, to the administrative duties which will devolve upon the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in carrying out the new firearms proposals and the new provisions regarding electronic surveillance.
Before dealing with three areas of special administrative concern to my department, I would like very briefly to sketch in some of the background against which the peace and security package was designed. As the Minister of Justice said in his speech moving second reading of Bill C-83, the concern of the federal government is to prevent and control crime, and especially violent and organized crime, here in Canada. The fundamental principle which must be kept in mind in assessing these measures is that the whole apparatus of criminal justice exists, first and foremost, to protect society against the effects of crime.
As I said before, while crime in Canada is not out of control, it is apparent that it is much easier to maintain control than it is to regain such control once lost. For this reason, the government is now offering to parliament the peace and security program, a series of measures to amend the criminal law and to improve the administration of criminal justice. These measures were proposed after lengthy consultations among federal officials and also with provincial governments whose responsibility for the administration of justice necessitates working in close co-operation with them.
I would now like to turn to the measures concerning firearms, corrections and electronic surveillance which bear specifically on my responsibilities as Solicitor General, and in the course of those remarks I would like to answer some of the concerns raised by hon. members in the initial stages of this debate. Some of the debate on the gun control measures appears to have missed the over-all intent of this new policy by misinterpreting some of the details.
Firearms have been, and continue to be, the instruments involved in frightening and tragic incidents in this country, such as occurred recently in Dresden and Calgary, not to mention the events in Vancouver, Brampton and Ottawa which are still so much in our minds. Many Canadians have expressed fear and concern that they might become victims of the senseless misuse of a firearm. People should not have to live with such concerns if we can do something about it, and I am convinced that we can. To reduce this concern we must reduce firearms incidents. To reduce firearms incidents we must reduce firearms availability- especially to those who can be identified as unfit, irresponsible, or dangerous.
Those who suggest that the answer to the firearms misuse problem in Canada lies in stiffer penalties against criminals alone have too restricted a view of the problem. Such penalties can help somewhat, of course, and to that extent new offences and higher maximum penalties have been provided for in the measures here proposed as outlined by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, at the opening of the debate. Yet it cannot be stated too often that few firearms murders are acts perpetrated by what we might call hardened or professional "criminals". Firearms murder is most often a domestic or acquaintance event
April 8, 1976

carried out in passionate circumstances by a person without heed for consequences with an all-too-available firearm.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is manslaughter.


William Warren Allmand: It is murder. Two-thirds of our murders are committed in that way.
We must also keep very much in mind the fact that firearms were the instruments in around one-third of our more than 3,000 suicides in 1974, and caused death in more than 100 accidents in that year. The same circumstances apply all too often in cases of firearms robbery. In many cases, if a gun was not easily available, the act of robbery would not have occurred. The stolen, or borrowed, or easily purchased gun supplies the false courage and the clouding of reason that leads to a senseless act.
Some have suggested that we prohibit all firearms. We reject such a suggestion. Such a suggestion denies the legitimacy of firearms ownership and use for target shooting, hunting for sport or for food, or antique collecting, and these are uses which the government recognizes as perfectly legitimate. Furthermore, it is the government's belief that these uses of firearms need not be prohibited in order to reduce firearms incidents and public concern. Most current users should accept the appropriateness of the measures proposed, since by curbing firearms misuse they enhance legitimate use. It is difficult to understand why a current, responsible firearms owner would object to demonstrating his fitness for ownership or to ensuring that his guns and ammunition were securely stored and responsibly used. By this process he can also feel more secure that fewer guns are in hands of the irresponsible or criminally careless. Many sportsmen have indicated that they can live with, and benefit from, measures designed to screen out possession and use of firearms by those not fit to use them.
No one would be so naive as to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that any package of gun control measures will completely eliminate gun misuse. The roots of violent behaviour go deep and the gun as a tool of criminal activity will not disappear-not with ten million guns in Canada, or one for every two Canadians. In such cases, society's denunciation of such an act will be expressed in mandatory and stiffer sentences, if the proposed amendments in this bill are approved. Yet this is certainly not the whole solution. Where we must concentrate our attention is on the prevention of tragic incidents. Firearms ownership and use represents a collection of circumstances, and we must use a package of measures to have an impact at every stage. For each step, we must ask: What are the possible benefits of measures here, and what are the offsetting costs?" When the benefits exceed the costs, a proposed option should be adopted.
I referred earlier to the many circumstances surrounding firearms possession and I am anxious that the measures we have proposed be seen as, and be considered as, a package designed to have an impact on all of those circumstances. We are trying, first and foremost, to reduce availability through tough import controls, new prohibitions, a voluntary recall program, and a needs test for the possession of
Measures Against Crime
restricted weapons, second, for those who continue to possess firearms, we wish to ensure they have nothing in their backgrounds that might render them unfit to do so. Further, we intend to offer an education program in responsible and secure gun storage and use, and we propose to augment that by applying criminal sanctions against careless misuse. Third, in dangerous situations that might still arise, we have proposed broader powers to the police and finally we suggest making greater powers available to the courts to deal with offenders. Each of these items in isolation can reduce the problem of firearms violence in Canada, but their real strength lies in their interlocking nature.
With respect to the most complex part of the package- the licensing system-let me try to differentiate it from a registration system and say why we rejected extending registration to long guns. Registration pertains to things- guns in this case-not people. It records the description, serial number and ownership of each item or weapon. For extremely lethal and easily hidden weapons such as handguns-which in Canada are restricted and of which there are relatively few-it is a workable and relatively effective system that screens owners and weapons alike and inhibits casual purchase. However, for the ten million long guns in Canada I believe that a registration scheme would be unworkable and impractical in comparison with its potential benefits. Instead, I believe that we can accomplish most of the same ends by a different means-licensing users. With licensing we focus on the person rather than the object, and we endeavor to ensure that he is not unfit to possess a lethal instrument such as a gun.
The government is pleased to see that some provinces wish to go even further in using the provisions of section 106(8) of the act, which encourage provinces to ensure that the licensed possessor is "safety trained" by means of programs they are now operating or could establish. Once licensed, a person could possess as many guns as he needed or wanted to have. Thus, with this bill's approach we are faced with the task of screening some two million to three million owners rather than having to register some ten million weapons.
Obviously, a licensing system as proposed here is a complex undertaking. Yet it has been designed so as to provide maximum flexibility in introduction and administration at the lowest possible cost. Aside from record-keeping, the system will be highly decentralized, with a number of licensing officers throughout Canada. These officers would process applications and approve licence issuance if justified. They would be supported and aided by local registrars, and each province would have a chief local registrar at the provincial level. Local registrars would normally be police officers as well, but licensing officers who will perform most of the administrative tasks would not necessarily be. Retired police officers or armed forces personnel may be excellent for this function.
Thus, individuals applying for a licence would deal with someone from their district or region of the province who may well know the applicant and be able to easily confirm his fitness to hold a gun licence. The police would carry out necessary record checks, while officials would handle administration. The requirement on the applicant to obtain a declaration signed by two guarantors who must affirm

April 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
the fitness of the applicant as a responsible person is an important part of this system. The idea is analogous to that of the passport system, but the list of potential guarantors could be widened to take account of the special needs and concerns involved; that is, it could include wildlife officers, officials from shooting or hunting clubs, Indian band organizations, and so on. The government wishes to involve sportsmen and take account of localized needs as much as possible in the administration of this program.
In the event of a licence refusal or revocation or for refusal or revocation of a restricted weapon, an appeal would be available in a court of law, and reasons for the refusal or revocation would be provided in writing to the appellant. Such appeals currently exist for firearms' registration certificates, but are rarely used, suggesting that original decisions are seen to be fair and appropriate. We would expect this pattern to continue here.
The exact costs of licensing and dealer regulation are still being worked out in conjunction with the provinces. The point I wish to emphasize here is that the cost to society of firearms possession and its attendant control will be borne principally by the gun owner. We think nothing of paying a fee for the privilege of driving a car- or owning it for that matter-or for numerous other privileges that may impose a cost on society. We aim at ensuring that drivers are fit to handle such potentially dangerous machines as autos by prohibiting driving without a license, which a potential driver must pay to obtain. So it should be with an instrument of potential danger such as a gun. Screening potential misusers is not without cost, but we believe that serious and responsible gun owners should be willing to pay for such a process.
Hon. members surely cannot support the current system, under which a person who has just been released from a prison or a mental hospital can walk into a sporting goods store, or a hardware of department store, and buy a high-powered rifle or shotgun, with no questions asked. Nor do I think hon. members believe it is reasonable that the same system-or lack of it-applies to young persons buying their first gun or individuals who, in the emotional wake of a personal crisis, rush to a store to purchase a firearm with which they believe they can resolve their problems.
One subsidiary, but not inconsequential, benefit of a licensing system is that it, hopefully, will cause many people to rethink the entire subject of firearms possession. Many guns are kept today because they were acquired some time ago, used briefly for shooting or hunting and then simply put away in a closet, such as occurred in the recent Dresden incident. As such, they represent danger through theft or use in a violent incident. This casual owner may decide he would rather turn in such a weapon rather than go through the process of obtaining a licence and the mecessary devices to keep his gun secure in his home. The active gun user will not be inhibited, since the process is straightforward, and security may well already be a fait accompli.
I feel I should remind the House that the total firearms package is not represented by the bill before it alone. Let me stress again the importance to the package of such measures as the voluntary recall of weapons, the education program, tighter import checks, and an on-going consultation with the provinces. Many of them have already prom-

ised additional measures that will augment and strengthen the controls proposed here. In fact, many have such measures in place already. I was recently reminded that Newfoundland has some of the strictest firearms controls in Canada and one of the lowest incidences fo firearms violence as well.
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on criticisms made against these proposals by former RCMP commissioner L. H. Nicholson, now with the Canadian Wildlife Federation, as reported in the press. On the subject of the alleged ignoring of the views of the Canadian Wildlife Federation, I can say that the government gave careful consideration to the brief and, in fact, adopted many of its recommendations. The rejection of a registration system, provision of an amnesty program, prohibition of sawed-off rifles and shotguns, and improvement of seizure provisions under sections 103 and 105 of the Criminal Code were all recommended by the Federation. The suggestion to strengthen provincial safety training standards was also accepted and, in fact, formed the basis for the proposed licensing system.
It was felt, however, that it was not enough to require only competency in gun handling or storage. The government concluded, after considering the views of the Canadian Wildlife Federation, FARO the Shooting Federation of Canada, the Canadian Sporting Arms and Administration Association, and other groups, that before a person should be able to possess a firearm he should be able to show that he is not unfit to do so.
On the complaint that the bill was kept secret before tabling, I can only reply that of course it was. If it had been released to outside interest groups before presentation in this House, the government would justifiably be subject to severe criticism. This is not to say that there was no prior consultation of the general subject matter. However, as I mentioned just now, in fact Mr. Nicholson himself was invited to address, and did address, the first national conference of local firearms registrars held in Ottawa last June. He attended the conference for two days. I listened to many of the remarks that he made and they did have some impact on the legislation.
In addressing the House, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) drew attention to the definition of "ammunition". He suggested a person finding a spent shell might be guilty of an offense for possessing unlicensed ammunition. 1 am sure the hon. member recognized that the concept of mens rea, along with discretion on the part of the police, Crown attorneys and the judiciary, must be taken into account in any discussion of this point. In fact, the government intends to amend this section in order to make the requirement of mens rea very clear, so that no one can be found guilty of an offence merely by finding a spent shell. Also, the definition in the bill is purposely complete because it is intended to require those people who possess the means for making ammunition and guns to be screened for fitness as much and as thoroughly as are the possessors of the completed item.
The hon. member for Calgary North also said that the gun control measures introduced by the government are, in effect, an ill-prepared and hurriedly worked out effort to
April 8, 1976

distract attention from capital punishment. I would like to deny that statement in the strongest possible terms. I must remind the House that firearms control has been a longstanding concern of mine. On two occasions as a backbencher I sought to give Canadians more control over firearms misuse. As Solicitor General, I assembled a working group to study the area and to report to me. It is their work that forms the basis for the measures proposed here. Further, as Solicitor General I called the first conference of firearms registrars and officials held in Canada to discuss the restricted weapons system and general control. It gives me considerable satisfaction to see before the House this package of measures to control firearms misuse within the context of the government's over-all concern with peace and security.
I could with some enthusiasm continue to point out the intention and strengths of the measures proposed here. But I am confident they will become abundantly clear as the bill is debated and reviewed by committee. Some people have criticized the government's proposed firearms control measures as the first step in the eventual confiscation of all firearms in Canada. Others have criticized the government for not offering stronger measures. The government, of course, is attempting neither to lay the groundwork for consideration of weapons, nor to appease those who oppose all gun controls. Instead, these proposals are designed to offer a workable, moderate, feasible approach to the serious problem presented by those who misuse firearms in Canada.
I believe the measures proposed in the bill we are now considering do offer a reasonable and reasoned approach, and I commend them to the House. If there are suggestions and ideas to improve that approach, then committee consideration of the bill is obviously the forum in which to present and study them. The Minister of Justice and I have made it clear that we welcome reasonable amendments in committee.
I would now like to turn to consideration of the proposals-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rising on a point of order?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the minister would permit a question before leaving gun control. In the Yukon, and I believe also in the Northwest Territories, the police, who have responsibility for granting permits to trappers, prospectors and persons engaged in exploration work in the wilderness, have received instructions not to issue any more permits to anyone. I just want to confirm whether or not that is the case. If that instruction has gone out from Ottawa, in order to afford guns to people who require to use hand-guns in the field for protection from grizzly bears and the like, could the instruction be revoked so far as the two northern territories are concerned?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I understand the registrar for the Yukon has issued a directive not to give permits to prospectors who apply for a hand-gun permit. It seems that up until recently the registrar of the Yukon did grant permits for the use of hand-guns by prospectors for selfprotection, whereas in the Northwest Territories they did
Measures Against Crime
not. I am led to believe that the two registrars got together and felt they should have one policy. I recently received a number of letters from prospectors in the north, and the question is under review at the present time.


Erik Nielsen: The instruction came from Ottawa.


William Warren Allmand: It did not come from me. It has been brought to my attention, and it is under review. I cannot tell the hon. member what the outcome of the review will be, but I have had representations from prospectors in the Yukon. I said I would now like-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) wishes to ask a question.


Mr. Scott:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I may. I am not in total support of Americans bringing guns into Canada, Mr. Speaker, but this does represent a large segment of the tourist industry and each province, especially the province of Ontario, earns millions of dollars from American hunters coming into Canada. What provisions have been made to allow Americans to bring guns into Canada for sporting reasons?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for temporary permits for sportsmen coming into Canada to hunt, just as hunters coming into Canada get temporary hunting licences in the different provinces. There are different rules in each province. I forget the actual section of the bill, but provision is made for a temporary firearms licence for these people. We can discuss this at greater length in committee, but that is provided for.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to discuss the proposals affecting the corrections system, namely, the proposals dealing with the custody and release of inmates. As the Minister of Justice said in his speech, the Ministry of the Solicitor General has already undertaken a series of administrative changes aimed at improving the screening process for release decisions. The peace and security program, too, includes a number of changes affecting the custody and release of inmates. These changes are being proposed after careful consideration of the Ouimet report, the Senate report under Senator Goldenberg and the Hugessen report, the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission and extensive consultation with the provinces.
A number of the legislative proposals are intended to improve the capacity of the penitentiary authorities to provide increased security within penitentiaries through better control of inmates. The maximum penalty for escape or attempted escape from a penitentiary has been increased from five years to ten years. This change is being introduced to further improve the penitentiary service record in so far as escapes are concerned. Since 1972, when we started an improved program of security in our penitentiaries-there were 187 escapes in that year-we have, through these improved measures, reduced the number of escapes to 115 in 1973, 50 in 1974 and 43 in 1975, a total reduction in that period of time of more than 75 per cent.

April 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
Another new measure related to the custody of inmates repeals statutory remission. Those sentenced to a penitentiary after the new legislation comes into force will no longer be automatically credited with one quarter of their sentence. Instead, they must earn all remission. An inmate will earn one day for every two days served during which he applies himself industriously. In other words, the inmate will be able to earn remission to a maximum of one-third of his sentence. The new amendments stipulate that earned remission is subject to forfeiture in the same way that statutory remission is at present. Once forfeited, however, it cannot be restored, nor can remission withheld at any given point be restored at a later date.
With the best possible conduct and industriousness, an inmate who is not granted parole can be released after approximately two-thirds of his sentence has been served. The fact that all remission will be earned, that none will be automatic, and that it will be subject to forfeiture for misconduct, will place a greater onus on the inmate to earn the earliest release date possible. This should promote better conditions within institutions, including greater participation in programs.
Under the proposed changes, the Commissioner of Penitentiaries will become the commissioner of corrections and the control and management of the national parole service will be transferred from the National Parole Board to the commissioner of corrections. Subject to the direction of the Solicitor General, the commissioner will become responsible for the preparation of cases for all types of release and the supervision of inmates on temporary absence, day parole, full parole and mandatory supervision. This will relieve the National Parole Board of its management responsibility for the parole service and, therefore, allow it to maintain its independence in its decision-making role. This action will also result in better co-ordination of programs and services between the Canadian penitentiary service and the National Parole Service. At the same time, the National Parole Service will obtain additional staff to increase supervision for inmates on temporary absence, day parole and mandatory supervision. The parole service will also be responsible for monitoring temporary release plans both for individual inmates and the program in general.
In addition to the above legislative proposals, the government intends to initiate the following administrative measures to provide a greater degree of security in penitentiaries. First, additional training in the techniques of security and in the behavioural sciences for correctional officers. Second, establishing emergency response teams or "crisis" units to react immediately to potential danger or actual trouble such as prison disturbances and hostagetaking incidents. Members of the unit will also be trained in negotiation techniques.
Third, extending the "team" concept of deployment of staff in maximum security institutions. This involves the grouping of staff in units of manageable size under permanently assigned supervisors. In addition to providing improved security, this team concept results in more effective programming through increased involvement of staff in the daily lives of prisoners, and also facilitates communication between staff members. At present, the team

concept, in the form of the "living unit" program, has been employed almost exclusively in minimum and medium security facilities. The concept has proven to be of sufficient value to warrant its expansion into the maximum security area.
Fourth, an accelerated prison construction program which will involve phasing out some old, obsolete institutions and replacing them with smaller facilities of the type recommended by the Mohr committee, better suited to the rehabilitation and control of specific groups of inmates. We are currently completing construction of such an institution in Mission, B.C., and have received approval for sites in B.C., Alberta and New Brunswick. Fifth, we are also moving ahead with the construction of regional psychiatric centres in the Saskatoon, Kingston, and Halifax areas.
The government recognizes the need for, and is committed to, the gradual release of inmates through an effective parole system involving temporary absence, day parole, full parole and mandatory supervision. The hon. member for Calgary North intimated that the parole and temporary absence problems had led to a large number of failures. In reply I would like to stress the overwhelmingly successful record of parole and temporary absences and the important role these programs play in the rehabilitative process within the criminal justice system.
Hon. members should bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that fully 95 per cent of our inmates are sentenced to definite terms, which means that one day, inevitably, they must be released into society. Only a very small percentage are in prison on life sentence. If no efforts are made to smooth that return by a program of gradual, supervised release, then the chances of successful reintegration into the outside world are much smaller.
The temporary absence program has a success rate of over 99 per cent. The 15-year average success rate of parole is between 75 per cent and 80 per cent. I must, of course, agree that there have been failures in our system and that some of these failures have had tragic consequences. Because of such failures in the past, we have tightened up our selection precess and we are introducing further legislative, regulatory and administrative improvements at this time.
In this peace and security program, a number of further amendments to existing parole legislation and regulations are proposed in order to achieve greater control over the release of inmates who are prone to violence, while at the same time providing fairness and equity in decisions which affect the release of all inmates, including those on parole.
Many of the measures affect the organization and jurisdiction of the National Parole Board. The number of parole board members will be increased from 19 to 26. New members will be appointed for a period not exceeding ten years. These additional appointments will allow the board to assume further responsibilities, such as the authority to grant unescorted temporary absences and to conduct internal review hearings, and will allow for an improved selection process on the part of the board members by reducing the caseload on each member, which is extremely burdensome in Ontario, Quebec and the prairies.
April 8, 1976

Provision is also made for the addition of special community members of the Parole Board by the Solicitor General on recommendation of the chairman of the Parole Board for cases involving convicted murderers and dangerous offenders. These persons may include representatives of police forces, provincial governments, municipal or other local authorities, or members of the local professional, trade or community associations. The purpose of this provision is to allow greater community input into parole decision-making in cases of convicted murderers and dangerous offenders by bringing local knowledge and local concerns right into the parole decision-process itself. These members will have all the powers and responsibilities of a regular board member, including the right to vote. The votes of panel members will be in addition to the number of regular board members required to vote in such cases.
The National Parole Board will have legislative jurisdiction over all unescorted temporary absences from federal institutions, thus removing the authority to grant temporary absence without escort from the penitentiary service. This change is designed to avoid situations where different authorities come to different conclusions concerning the advisability of temporarily releasing an inmate, as has happened on a few occasions in the past. A number of significant regulatory changes will alter the Parole Board's rules governing the eligibility period of release of inmates. The National Parole Board will no longer be permitted to grant parole by exception where, in special circumstances, an inmate may be released before he has reached his parole eligibility date.
Offenders convicted of certain types of offences involving violence and who have, in addition, a history of violent crimes, will not become eligible to be considered for parole until they have served one-half of their term of imprisonment, or seven years, whichever is the lesser, instead of the normal one-third, or seven years. At the same time, the government is moving to safeguard the rights of those inmates and parolees who are affected by these measures. These will provide a fairer method of dealing with parole violators who are subject to parole suspension and revocation.
Furthermore, procedures guaranteeing certain elements of due process will be incorporated into Parole Board hearings. Although the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the National Parole Board is an administrative board and not subject to judicial review, the government feels a responsibility to provide those persons appearing before it with some procedural safeguards, and to make existing practices more visible.
Regulations will be proposed, following approval of the bill, which will provide that the board hold hearings for both ordinary parole and day parole, that reasons be given for parole decisions and that an internal review mechanism be established. In addition, the board will experiment with the concept of allowing inmates prior access to some of the information upon which board decisions are made, with the idea of allowing inmates a form of representation before the board, and with holding hearings after suspension of parole in order to make a decision regarding revocation. These regulations will provide visible procedural safeguards for those appearing before the board.
Measures Against Crime


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but before he deals further with this subject I must inform him that his time has now expired and that he may not continue unless he has the unanimous consent of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is sufficiently important for us to wish the minister to continue with his explanation. However, having regard to the fact that the government has imposed closure, I hope he will be as brief as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: I appreciate the consent given by hon. members, and I will try to wind up quickly. I now wish to comment on the four proposed amendments to the protection of privacy legislation. The first point that must be stressed is that none of the proposed amendments extends any new authority to the police. The stringent controls and accountability procedures contained in the law currently will continue. For the benefit of those who have expressed doubts concerning these amendments, I shall summarize these controls and procedures once more. Although I refer to procedures followed by the RCMP, similar procedures are followed by the various police forces across Canada.
The investigating officer must satisfy a more senior officer in his department of the need for an authorization to intercept a private communication. If the senior officer agrees that a need exists, the investigating officer must then go to an agent of the Crown, usually a staff member of the Department of Justice. He must once again present his evidence and satisfy this agent of the Crown that there is a legal requirement for an authorization. If the agent is satisfied, he then makes application to a judge who has the appropriate jurisdiction and presents the judge with affidavits showing the necessity for employing electronic surveillance. If the judge is fully satisfied that the law has been complied with, then, and only then, will an authorization be issued permitting the interception of a private communication. In addition, the requirement for an annual report to parliament is part of the accountability procedure. Honourable members will recall that I tabled such a report in the House of Commons on February 13. This report provides a public record of all authorizations which were issued in 1975 to police officers investigating federal offences. My provincial counterparts are also obliged to make public a similar record of the details of authorizations issued under provincial authority.
When this new law was proclaimed in July, 1974, I assigned to members of the Ministry of the Solicitor General the task of maintaining a continuous liaison with all the provinces and of conducting a formal review of the law and its effectiveness after it had been implemented for one year. This review, which was completed in October, 1975, involved federal officials from the Ministry of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General, members of the RCMP, provincial officials, members of provincial police forces and those at the municipal level. The results of this review were discussed last fall at a conference of attorneys general in Halifax, at which the proposed amendments now before this House were agreed to by all ten provinces.


Erik Nielsen: What about the territories?

April 8, 1976
Adjournment Motion


William Warren Allmand: And the territories. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to deal with some of the objections which have been raised by hon. member with respect to parts of the peace and security program, in particular the provisions respecting dangerous offenders. However, I do not wish to take advantage of the courtesy the House has shown, so I shall end my remarks at this point. I simply wish to confirm that the Minister of Justice and myself are already preparing amendments which have been suggested to us during the course of this debate. We have already agreed to incorporate certain amendments which appear to us to be reasonable, and we shall be pleased to hear further representations in the committee. We expect representatives of all the national associations involved in hunting, shooting, antique collecting, and so on, to appear before the committee, and I am sure that with the co-operation of all honourable members we can bring in legislation which will better protect the Canadian public and bring them the peace and security they deserve.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on Bill C-83 which I see as yet another piece of legislation which is taking away certain rights from native people across Canada and will be causing hardship to hunters, trappers and prospectors in the Northwest Territories.
I notice that the time available this afternoon for debating this subject is running out, so may I call it five o'clock and resume this evening?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social Security; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Transport; the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)- Floods.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions. It is my understanding that there is agreement to proceed with motion No. 97, in the name of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


Steve Eugene Paproski: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to stand all the other motions which appear on the Order Paper ahead of motion No. 97?


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is also agreed, Mr. Speaker.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria) moved:: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a certain amount of hesitation, bearing in mind that the speech of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) on the peace and security legislation had to be interrupted.
I suppose the story of the LRPA should be divided into three eras, and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) has always been talking of new eras of defence financing. The story of Lockheed could almost be prehistoric, historic and modern. Perhaps you will forgive me if I start in with the historic period of the Lockheed program. The Lockheed story first came to the knowledge of the House of Commons on March 17, 1969 in reply to a question by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). The then minister of national defence, Mr. Cadieux, said they were going to replace the Argus. That is something over seven years ago.
The next five years in the history was a study of the problem. They looked at three or four aircraft companies, narrowed it down to three, and then dropped the British product, the Nimrod, two years ago. The government then announced, with a great deal of fanfare, that they were down to two companies, Boeing and Lockheed, and were then entering the final definition phase. There was to be a bill of $11 million for that final definition stage, to be split approximately 50-50 between the two companies. The two companies duly completed the final definition phase. The culmination date of that was August 1 of last year, at which time a contract was supposed to be signed. Then we started into the modern era of delay.
I would ask you to note that in the humble address I particularly ask that they not only provide the contract but include the agreed formula as outlined on page 11617 of Hansard. The part of Hansard on that page I want to draw to the attention of the House and the minister is where the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) said:
As for the terms of payment of this eventual contract with Lockheed, we are not required to make a downpayment. According to the agreed formula, we pay as the production goes on.
It would be very interesting for the House to be informed whether the Minister of Supply and Services had seen this agreed formula, because we find that the Minister of National Defence said at page 11402 of Hansard for March 2, when speaking about the government:
At the time it agreed to purchase the Lockheed, the government made agreements for full payment when the aircraft were delivered-
April 8, 1976

This is exactly the opposite of what the Minister of Supply and Services said. I would not wish to suggest that either one of those gentlemen was deliberately deceiving the House. I understand it would be unparliamentary to do so. I would not do so in any event, because I do not think the House trusts them enough to be deceived by them any longer. Let it be said that they have said diametrically opposite things. One says we are to pay for this aircraft according to an agreed formula as the production goes on, and the other says we are to make full payment when the aircraft are delivered. In other words, according to the Minister of National Defence, the government expected Lockheed to provide interim financing for three years. This would be a huge sum, I think well beyond Lockheed's capability even without its current difficulties.
Lockheed, on the other hand, told me that this would be quite contrary to normal financing arrangements for such contracts. Lockheed has said that the payment schedule was all set down in the final proposal to the government of last August, which the government accepted in principle when it announced its decision to buy the Lockheed plane. I must say that from my scant knowledge of the world of armaments and armament purchases, Lockheed seemed to be setting out a fairly reasonable position. It claimed that its final offer spelled out to the finest detail the dates and the amounts that were going to be owed by the government to Lockheed as the plane was produced. My understanding is that the first payment was due at the end of January, and was in the approximate amount of $1 million, and there were to be monthly payments from then on.
From these three pieces of evidence we can see that the Minister of Supply and Services and Lockheed are on the same side, but flatly contradicted by the Minister of National Defence when he stated we were going to pay for the planes in full when the order was completed. To enable the opposition and the Canadian people to determine the truth, we want these papers tabled. If there is an agreed formula which spelled out that monthly payments were due, how could the Minister of National Defence possibly make the statement he made at page 11402 of Hansard, where he said: "The government made arrangements for full payment when the aircraft were delivered"?
Having made this statement, the minister adopted an attitude of shifting the responsibility from himself to his negotiating team and, indeed, to individuals on that team. To me this is a lamentable practice. Ministers are responsible for everything that happens within their departments, and if the negotiating team was under the supervision of the Department of National Defence, then the Minister of National Defence should cheerfully accept total responsibility. If it was not operating to his satisfaction, then it was his duty to find out. If there were misunderstandings or deceptions going on, it was up to the minister to find those misunderstandings and deceptions and take corrective action. If he did not have the proper personnel on the team, then he should have changed the personnel. The minister should not try to shift the responsibility from himself to any of his subordinates.
It is the minister who said the government was going to pay for that plane when it was finally delivered, and he is flatly contradicted by another minister of the Crown. I might say, in passing, that the Minister of Supply and
Lockheed Contract
Services was rather neatly taken off the hook in respect of this whole mess by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he said, as recorded at page 12436 of Hansard:
-the arranging of the financing and the supervising of the execution of the contract are the responsibilities of the Minister of National Defence.
It seems to me he want one step further than he had to, to be sure the Minister of Supply and Services would not have the eight ball placed in front of him but would have it placed in front of the Minister of National Defence. This is an example of the inner politics of the cabinet which is far too devious for my simple mind to understand. However, it did become clear that, as far as the Prime Minister was concerned, if there was anything wrong with this contract we should blame the Minister of National Defence.
After a cabinet meeting on November 27, the minister announced the momentous news that Canada was going to replace the Argus with the Lockheed LRPA at a cost of $950 million. In fairness to the minister, he said at that time there would be additional interest costs, but he did not say how much. It turned out later to be $111 million. One should read closely the minister's earth-shaking announcement about the decision to re-equip the Canadian forces. I might say this was a very surprising decision. I could hardly believe that the government was going to spend $1 billion on 18 aircraft, knowing its disposition not to spend money in support of the forces. I hoped for the best. When reading the fine print of the announcement one found that there was to be no money actually spent by the government for some three years. It was going to go through an intricate system of switching funds from the operating budget to the capital budget, ending up with jam tomorrow, only three years down the road.
I would like to say, en passant, that the method by which that announcement was made left much to be desired. I imagine that people even as thick-skinned as some of our ministers must have thought how foolish we looked on the world stage at that time. I should like to quote a newspaper article in this regard. I refer to a column written by Duart Farquharson, headlined "Canada finally leaves NATO military purgatory". One would think, in view of what has happened around the world in the last two or three weeks, that we would hate to be faced with the way we advertised ourselves last December when the minister, having made his announcement, dashed off to Europe to reap the gratitude of NATO. The article reads:
NATO welcomed Canada back into its military good graces Tuesday as defence minister James Richardson announced the Trudeau government's plans to beef up its contribution in Europe.
The "unanimous appreciation" of the alliance members as described to reporters by Richardson was led off by Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Hill-Norton, chairman of NATO's military committee.
NATO secretary-general Joseph Luns, who earlier this fall publicly criticized the equipment Canadian forces are using in Europe as grossly inadequate, offered his congratulations after the Canadian minister spoke.
The difficulty is that they did not understand Canadian ministers and that when a Canadian minister says he has made a decision to buy an aircraft one should never assume that is what he meant. One should assume that it had been discussed, will be discussed again and that perhaps an aircraft will be purchased, maybe someday but

April 8, 1976
Lockheed Contract
certainly not today or this year. It is strange to read that a minister of the Crown would go to Europe and announce the position in the way he did by indicating that the money was in hand and that the planes would be rolling. Now, of course, it is an entirely different story. After December a period of doubt came along.
I asked the Minister of Supply and Services some time in December if he would give me a copy of the contract which it was expected would be signed that day. He said he would give it to me, but I did not receive it. They had the quietest non-signing I have ever heard of on January 4 when the officials from Lockheed flew up here from Burbank to sign the contract. There was deathless silence. In the words of the Minister of Supply and Services, there were "technical difficulties".
He asked me if I would hold up the motion I had placed on the order paper and said that in a few days he would give me the contract because they were just going to straighten out these technical difficulties. He said after the signing I could have the contract and everybody would be happy. But nothing happened for two or three weeks, and I asked again. He said that the technical difficulties had to do with the long-term financing. With deference to the minister, I believe he may have meant interim financing because the kind of financing we have heard about is not long-term in the generally accepted sense. I thought the Minister of Supply and Services was quite honest in saying that the problem was in respect of financing while the Minister of National Defence said the problem really involved the bribery scandal concerning Lockheed around the world.
The contract was not signed on January 4 and the bribery scandal did not begin until three weeks after that. At that time it became obvious that there was something besides the bribery scandal that kept the parties from signing this agreement. The minister then said there was a financing problem, but that they were about to settle it and that they had the assurance from Lockheed that it could handle the financing. Eventually, a few days ago, a letter was tabled from Mr. Heppe, the executive vice-president of government programs for Lockheed. I believe this correspondence is available to any member and I believe, also, to any member of the public. The Minister of National Defence claimed that Lockheed would find the money. He liked to quote one sentence; speaking about a loan by Lockheed. The sentence reads as follows:
We believe this approach has merit and after due consideration would receive a positive response.
What the minister refrained from saying at the time was that this involved a relatively small amount of $27 million which Lockheed thought it would have to provide because Canada could not provide it, for a very short period of eight months which ended this April, and the fee for that would be $800,000 which Canada would pay off in April. That letter was tabled, as was the response it occasioned. The letter which occasioned this response from Lockheed was signed by Mr. L. H. Stopforth, deputy project manager, also known as a very senior official in the Ministry of Supply and Services. We might recall that the Minister of Supply and Services did not know about the financial difficulty, and yet one of his immediate subordinates indicated that there was a financial difficulty.
This matter continued to become more and more complex. I could easily go on for hours on this subject. I think this story is now of great interest to the people of Canada. It is a story of utmost confusion. We would like to examine the matter in order to determine where the fault lies. The Minister of Supply and Services admitted in the House two or three days ago that if this contract is not signed, the cost to Canada will be at least $28 million even before the cost of the project team is considered. One billion dollars is a very serious matter and one which is really beyond the understanding of most people. If we had had public disclosure of these two letters from Lockheed about the small loan last summer, we would have told the government and there would have been no doubt in the minds of government members, if they were not smart enough to realize it themselves, that this in no way represented an offer to do the interim financing.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the government, in the interest of good government and in the interest of getting a good contract, will see its way to tabling these documents so that everyone can operate from the known facts and perhaps clear away some of the confusion which exists at least on the government side insofar as this contract is concerned.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to support the motion of the hon. member for the production of papers pertaining to LRPAs, Lockheed, and so on although my willingness may be for reasons different from his. I cannot understand why a government of Canada, of whatever political stripe, would conduct any kind of negotiations with an outfit like Lockheed, with the kind of reputation it has and the practices in which it has been engaged over the years. That is the first question the government has failed to answer. If the government of Canada were to deal with an individual or a Canadian corporation which carried on the same kind of practices, it would not likely happen. My view is that this whole deal would be forgotten by the government of Canada.
Even if it were to cost the $28 million of which my good friend speaks, it seems to me that would be a lesser evil than to continue dealing with this kind of outfit, with the kind of practices and reputation that we now know they have and about which we have known for many months.
Let us speak about the aircraft itself. I find it interesting, in light of the questions and answers yesterday, and in fact I even agree with my leader-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is rare.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -who finds that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) is preparing for the second world war. I thought maybe he was preparing for Custer's last stand. In the area of technology, in which I am not an expert, I understand that in Ottawa, at Bell's Corners, they have developed the next generation's communications and electronics technology for surveillance and detection, at which the U.S. defence department and others are looking with great interest with the likelihood that they will buy it. But the Minister of National Defence is going to pur-

April 8, 1976

chase aircraft the surveillance and detection technology of which is already outdated. I find that passing strange.
If the U.S. defence department and other countries will be buying technology from Canada which is better and in advance of that which they have themselves, then I do not understand why the minister would want to continue dickering with Lockheed. That is another reason why the documents asked for in this motion should be presented to the House. The minister cannot make up his mind, but perhaps with the help of these documents we might help him make up his mind.
The minister made some effort yesterday to justify these negotiations on the basis of what the boys in NATO have been telling him about the Russians being ahead of us in certain areas of weaponry. With the 18 propeller-driven aircraft whose detection and surveillance capacity is already outdated, I do not understand how we can possibly make any contribution to NATO or catch up with what the Russians are doing, other than be laughed out of town not only by the Russians but by our colleagues in NATO. So why the minister would pursue that argument, and say that Canada might make an equivalent or up to date contribution to NATO with 18 propeller aircraft which are outdated, is beyond me.
If there is a legitimate point to be made about having an aircraft with up to date surveillance and detection capacity, not for military reasons but for a lot of other reasons about which members of the House and the country as a whole should be concerned, and if we have some technology and capacity ourselves, or if countries other than the U.S. have that technology and capacity, then surely that is where we should be looking.
I think we need a coastal capacity both on the surface and in the air far beyond anything we have at the moment. Believe it or not, it is possible that the defence budget with an NDP government would have would be higher than the one this government has. But it would be higher for a hell of a lot of different reasons. If we are going to exercise our sovereignty and provide a capacity to maintain that sovereignty, and if we are going to exercise surveillance in the areas of fisheries, pollution, and search and rescue to the 200-mile limit, then of course we will need aircraft and surface vessels.
The Minister of National Defence is trying to play in a champagne league with beer equipment. The minister is trying to buy some long-range patrol, propeller-driven aircraft-they might even be turbo-props-with a built in computer and electronic capacity which, speaking conservatively, so to speak, is five years out of date, and perhaps ten years out of date, in spite of the technical capacity which we already have for surveillance and with the capacity we already have for airframe construction in a couple of companies which the government of Canada has bought. I cannot stand private enterprise which goes public when they do not believe in it. They make a Crown corporation, not because there is something valuable in having such a company but to bail out some private enterprise friends who have gone belly up.
This leads me to another point. I must take issue with hon. friends to my right. We are very busy dealing with Lockheed. Normally, under the free enterprise system, if you want to sell something to a customer, be it the govern-
LockheecL Contract
ment, a corporation or an individual, you have to stand on your own feet, you must have your own production, your own finances and arrange your own loans and guarantees. In fact, you must be able to drag yourself up by your own bootstraps.
A national government is buying defence hardware- whether it is the government of Canada, the U.S. or any other country-but suddenly the private enterprise outfit which will sell you this stuff needs to have many things on paper ahead of time to help them out with their financing so they can make the product you are going to buy, and in the course of that you will have to add some extra millions of dollars to allow them to get the money to make the product which you are going to buy. Even if I were a raving capitalist and free enterpriser, I would say that if I have to go through that nonsense I would prefer to build the aircraft myself. That is another reason why I am happy to support the hon. member's motion for the production of papers.
Since when does the government of Canada and the taxpayers of this country have to contribute to the financing and funding of a corporation with the reputation and business ethics of a tomcat? If I were a raving free enterpriser and believer in the capitalist system, that would be the last company I would deal with, because they hardly add to the credibility and credence of so-called private enterprise practices and theory. That is another reason I do not understand why the government continues beyond six o'clock today to pursue any kind of bargaining or negotiating with Lockheed. They should tell them to go home, that they do not even want to talk to them any more. How can the Minister of National Defence allow himself to be sucked into buying an aircraft that is already at least five years out of date? I do not understand that, and I am not even an expert. I wonder what Canadian experts think of all this.
I suppose you could call all this a business in the worst sense of the word. If a corporation, intending to deal with the public in an open and honest manner, is prepared to compete-in the worst or best sense of the word, depending on how you look at it-it will have no hesitation in being totally open and honest with the government with which it is dealing, and in turn the government will have no hesitation in being totally open with the public and with the House of Commons.
In light of what has happened over the past number of years nobody can convince me that the people in the higher circles of the Government of Canada were not aware of the kind of people with whom they were dealing, whether it was Lockheed or numerous other corporations. They knew what Joe Citizen for years suspected, and that has been confirmed by the events which have occurred in the last 12 or 18 months.
We need to put an end to any dealings with Lockheed in the search for a long range patrol aircraft and coastguard capacity. We have not even scratched the surface, but I think this search is a legitimate move on behalf of the people of Canada. What we require will cost a lot of money. It cannot be done in just a few weeks, months or

April 8, 1976
Lockheed Contract
years, but requires much planning and investment. It will cost much, but it has to be worth while.
Acquiring aircraft for coastal work, including the 200 mile limit, the Arctic, search and rescue, fisheries, pollution, and displaying sovereignty, will require much more than 18 propellor driven aircraft with technology which is five years out of date, leaving aside the outfit with which the government is presently dealing. If this corporation is reputable, of international standing, of international capacity, of international reputation and so forth, it should not require or even ask for any kind of loan guarantees, financing, or influence from the Government of Canada. That corporation should be here on its own terms as a private enterprise competing with all the others. However, it is not here on that basis.
There would be nothing wrong with the Minister of National Defence getting up and admitting that he made a mistake in even talking with these people, and indicating an intention to cut off negotiations. He would receive the applause and approbation of every member of this House on all sides. I do not see any point in continuing negotiations with an organization which almost requires a blank cheque. It may or may not go belly up after it has been given a blank cheque; that will depend on what President Ford and some U.S. senators and congressmen decide. I see no point in our discussing giving that organization a blank cheque so that it can have the money to build something we are going to buy. If we are going to do it that way, let us build it ourselves, or if we are going to give money to somebody let us give it to a Canadian company or some country which needs help.
I do not not understand why the government has hesitated so long. It has run scared, and judging by the performance of the Minister of National Defence yesterday, if some nut ever does push the button and we are plunged into a nuclear holocaust, I just hope that the Minister of National Defence is not there calling the shots. He continues to practise what has been going on with our national defence capacity in NATO and NORAD, and he even extends it to what is more a civilian operation with long range patrol aircraft. He continues that mentality. In other words we are the new Belgium and the new Poland. We are caught in the middle; we are dead ducks.
To suggest that these long range patrol aircraft could somehow be useful in protecting convoys and detecting nuclear submarines, really, for a rank amateur in defence matters that exceeds even my credulity. From what I have been able to read and discuss with people who know something about convoy procedures in the event of a third world war and with people who have some experience with nuclear submarines, the missiles which they can fire and the detection of them, I submit what is proposed to be in these Lockheed long range patrol aircraft will be totally inadequate and worthless.
If a submarine were dumb enough to surface and stand still for a while, perhaps some Canadian long range patrol aircraft might accidentally find it, but even with 12 of them in operation 24 hours a day, and six of them on stand by-and with the number of miles of sea to cover-who is the minister trying to kid? As I said, he is trying to play in a champagne league with a beer operation.
This whole thing needs much more going into than is being done in the question period. It needs more than what the hon. member responsible for this motion is seeking, and I hope that the House will agree that these materials should be made available to parliament and to the public. I hope also in the course of arriving at that conclusion hon. members on all sides will take a pretty good hard look at other things we are doing through the Department of National Defence in areas we are involved in like NORAD and NATO, which do not really add to the effectiveness of those operations.
According to middle level and senior officers, if the nuclear button were pushed, those operations would not amount to anything. Perhaps after we adopt the motion, Canada and this government will look a little more seriously at the kind of role we can and should be playing in the areas of peacekeeping, fisheries surveillance, and pollution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Walter Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 97, dated March 31, 1976 and moved by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), was opposed by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) because it was felt inappropriate to table in this House papers relating to negotiations leading to a contract until that contract had been executed. I would have thought this reason to be straightforward and clear to my friend, the hon. member for Victoria. However, I was mistaken.
I find certain similarities between negotiations of a contract, such as the one we are concerned with for long range patrol aircraft, and the defence prepared by an attorney for a client. Does an attorney make his defence strategy known before the case opens? I always thought not. Yet the hon. member for Victoria is asking the Minister of Supply and Services to make public all the clauses of the proposed contract, including the payment formula, the very heart of the negotiations. Does this sound reasonable?
As if too little had already been said about the matter, I must reiterate what has been said in this House on the matter of guidelines for the production of papers, tabled on March 15, 1973, and printed as an appendix to Hansard of that date at page 2288. The same guidelines were also tabled by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) on December 19, 1974, and were referred to a standing joint committee of this House for consideration. Indeed the seventh report of that committee presented to the House on Tuesday, December 16, 1975, was the subject of a motion debated in this House on an allotted day for consideration of the business of supply, on Thursday, February 12, 1976.
So important and of concern of so many is this matter of freedom of information that the committee asked to be authorized to examine the matter further during the balance of this session. It seems to me that having adopted the motion is proof enough of the seriousness of this important issue.
It has been said in this House by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that these guide-

April 8, 1976

lines were the government's own rules by which it determines whether or not it will make papers public. At least they are a starting point for a committee of this House to formulate some reasonable rules and, as suggested by my colleague, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton), they are better than those of most other countries. This motion could well have been withdrawn, perhaps never moved, if we had an adopted set of guidelines such as those proposed. I suspect, as did the hon. member for Welland, who sat as a member of that committee, that the notice of motion for the production of papers was a ploy to obtain a debate.
I do not feel it is too much to ask the hon. member for Victoria to be just a little more patient. The Minister of Supply and Services had earlier agreed to provide the hon. member for Victoria with a copy of the contract with the company when it had been executed. On February 2, 1976, in reply to a question by the hon. member, as reported in Hansard of that date at page 10524, the Minister said:
The contract has not been signed, Mr. Speaker.
He then told the hon. member that some technical difficulties had emerged which caused some delay.
Just a short while later on February 12, and again on February 13, in reply to questions from the same member, Hansard reports at page 10868 that the minister said:
These technical problems relate strictly to long term financing-
Mr. Speaker, the contract we intend to sign with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation has been subject to a long study by an interdepartmental committee, under the direction of the Department of National Defence, and for which the government paid a considerable amount of money to have the program finalized. This contract has finally been negotiated through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to establish what would be the best economic repercussions for Canada.
We thought we had all the possible advantages to meet our needs and our economic objectives. This is why we are considering the possibility of signing the contract with Lockheed Aircraft once the arrangements concerning the long term financing are completed.
As reported at page 10919 of Hansard, the Minister of Supply and Services said this:
Mr. Speaker, we are now studying the problem of long term financing. The Minister of National Defence is taking a very close look at it and I would not like, for the time being, to disclose anything which might harm the negotiations. This is why I am requesting the hon. member to be patient. I think that within a few days the Minister of National Defence and I will be able to say exactly what has been the fate of this contract.
The minister was trying to tell the hon. member that until the negotiations were completed and the contract signed, there was no document to produce. Surely what has been said is clear. I fail to understand why the hon. member would move that a copy of the proposed contract be tabled. The government is not trying to withhold information; it is merely trying not to impede or jeopardize the negotiations which are still being carried out.
If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, a few more quotations from Hansard will assist in establishing the chronology of events. On March 9, as reported at page 11617, the Minister of Supply and Services said:
Mr. Speaker, from the contract negotiated but not yet signed with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Ltd., will flow a major economic boost for Canada and we obviously keep this advantage in mind.
As for the terms of payment of this eventual contract with Lockheed, we are not required to make a down payment. According to the agreed formula, we pay as the production goes on. As for the risk of dealing
Lockheed Contract
with Lockheed, some officials met with representatives of the American government to assess what would be their own position toward Lockheed, given the prevailing circumstances surrounding this corporation.
The American government accounts for two thirds of Lockheed's over-all orders, which means that Lockheed considers the United States government as a major player. The fact that the United States chose to deal with Lockheed reassures Canada to a certain extent.
Up to that point in time no contract had been signed, but the hon. member will agree that the minister was keeping the House informed of the development in negotiations, almost day by day. The most recent significant development was transmitted to the House on April 1 when, in reply to a question from the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), the minister is quoted in Hansard at page 12350 as saying:
Mr. Speaker, it is true that Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Ltd. did some work before the contract signature. It is also true that Lockheed gave us a first delay until March 31 without any change in prices and in the economic advantages for Canada. This is in fact a provision of the letter of agreement we signed to the effect that we are going to pay Lockheed for work done between January 5 and April 30, with a view to preserving the price we negotiated last December, preserving the production schedule which is advantageous for Canada, and preserving the economic impact which is evident for the country since we sign a $614 million contract with Lockheed and we are going to have economic repercussions of about $580 million in Canada.
In consideration of all these advantages, we agreed with Lockheed to pay a maximum of $16 million in case we put an end to our negotiations between now and April 30. This being said, we do intend to sign the contract if possible, because these are the best conditions we can get for Canada to fulfil its role in NATO.
From these open answers in this House it can hardly be said that the government is withholding information. On the contrary, I feel strongly that exemption No. 10 of the guidelines was carefully weighed before being proposed, and likely with the precise object of avoiding any impediment to the orderly unfolding of negotiations. This is why the government chose to oppose the motion presented by the hon. member.
Guidelines are criticized and rightly so; results would not be achieved otherwise. I am looking forward to the final report and recommendations from the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments which will bring in definite rules by which the public and parliamentarians will have access to more information. In line with the policy of openness that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) is hoping will be adopted, I am confident the recommendations will not breach the confidentiality of such deliberations as are presently going on in relation to this contract. I shall now conclude, Mr. Speaker, and give some other hon. member a chance to contribute.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr Speaker, the parliamentary secretary seems to miss the point on this issue. I must say I find it rather strange that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) is not in the House to argue his own case since we are talking about a $1 billion contract. It has been subject to six weeks of questioning in the House of Commons, and the matter has been brought up in committee, but we still do not have the answers. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he take this information back to his minister.
This would have been an excellent contract for the national defence committee to have studied. Buying aircraft

April 8, 1976
Lockheed Contract
like these is in the national interest and is a defence matter; it has nothing to do with partisan politics. What is so disturbing is this loose contract and verbal assurances. It is unbelievable when you read the background of this company. When it received backing in the United States, a 48 to 48 tie had to be broken in the Senate before it could receive any financial aid from the United States government. That would not indicate it had very strong support in the United States. As far back as 1971 it was stated, and I quote:
The legislation would permit the government to guarantee up to $250 million in bank loans to any corporation whose failure would "seriously and adversely" affect the national economy or that of any region.
That is referring to Lockheed.
-Administration spokesmen made clear their expectation that the entire $250-million would be used to shore up Lockheed ...
Mechanically, guarantees of the loans to Lockheed will have to be authorized first by a three-man board that is created under the legislation. The members of the board are the Secretary of the Treasury, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
As far back as 1971 you can see the financial straits this company was in, and this certainly should have alerted the minister and the government when dealing with it. They should not be talking about verbal assurances, as was the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) on a number of occasions. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) said that he does not believe in verbal assurances of contracts.
In an article in the December 9, 1972, New York Times there are further comments about Lockheed by the General Accounting Office, the U.S. congressional watchdog agency. I quote:
Firm orders for 110 of the large planes "will probably generate about $393 million in cash through 1975-an amount sufficient to repay the government-guaranteed loan", the agency said. However, it added: "Lockheed could suffer substantial losses if it does not receive additional Tristar orders."
You can see the difficulties it was in at that time.
At the last meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on March 23 the matter was pursued further. With regard to questions about the Lockheed purchase the Minister of National Defence stated, and I quote:
The problem was that the particular company that we were dealing with had an understanding with their banks and with the United States government that they would not borrow further. But they did not reveal that to us.
The Canadian government certainly did not go into any detail whatsoever in drafting this contract with Lockheed. One member of the committee then asked:
Was the government aware of that limitation?
The minister replied:
No, we were not, and that was the prime cause of the misunderstanding.
The Minister of National Defence was premature in making the announcement about this purchase in November, 1975. There was no firm contract. If he had waited until there was a firm contract and all negotiations were completed, we would not be committed to this $60 million.

In all probability we would not be in the mess we are in today. Further at that committee meeting our defence critic, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), stated:
Well, the fact that Lockheed were not able to borrow further was common knowledge in the United States-
I just revealed this fact going back to 1971.
-and I am a little puzzled about this remark that it was not known by an organization who were planning to spend $1 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money on this company.
The minister replied:
I can only repeat, Mr. Chairman, that our officials were advised by Lockheed that they could provide the financing.
There was no official documentation. It is unbelievable that the minister would get involved in a contract like this on verbal assurances.
At the committee meeting of December 1, 1975, we questioned the minister about this contract. He had stated that a large part of the work would be done in Canada. I was most interested in where and who in Canada was going to get this work. I put this question to the minister:
Mr. Minister, I would like to get more information on the manufacturer of parts for the Lockheed Orions in Canada. You stated that there could be a maximum of $560 million spent in Canada in the manufacture of parts, and that you had a firm commitment that $283 million would be spent in Canada. Apparently a General Allen of National Defence was chairing a committee to firm this up. Could you inform the committee as to what provinces, or what firms, will be getting this spare-part manufacturing business?
The minister replied:
I can give you the over-all figures even more precisely than I did the other day.
The minister had given me some information in the House a couple of days earlier.
I mentioned in the House a figure of $283 million that was confirmed, and the $285 million figure. X understand that both of those figures are ones the Lockheed firm are prepared to carry out in Canada for a total of $568 million. The reason for their separation is that the $285 million of work has not been identified as to its exact location, but it still is work that can be done and will be done by the Lockheed company in Canada.
I was interested in what work would be going to Winnipeg. The minister informed me that work would be going to Standard Aero and Bristol. He said, and I quote:
I do not have dates, but the program is starting now and it certainly will be during the life of the contract. Even Standard Aero will not have to wait, even though it is repair and overhaul, until they are starting to repair engines from our own aircraft. They will start to get work now,-
That is what he stated on December 1, 1975. The parliamentary secretary told us today that they are still negotiating a firm contract, but the minister stated in committee that they will get work in Winnipeg "now". What did he mean by "now"? May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
April 8, 1976



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, the first point I would like to make in'connection with Bill C-83 concerns the way it was presented to the House. The bill covers some six separate areas and I feel that issues as varied as gun control, wire tapping, and parole reform should be presented to the House separately because each of these issues is of great interest to many people. I am sure many of my colleagues will agree with me that parts of the bill are acceptable and that parts of it should be thrown out entirely. However, the government has put us in the position of having to accept all or nothing. But I suppose that is in keeping with its usual methods of consultation, Mr. Speaker.
At this stage of the bill I intend to confine my remarks to the section dealing with gun control. This problem, Mr. Speaker, is a difficult one. The difficulty arises because of the great variety of uses for guns. After all, they are just one of man's many tools. In my own riding, guns are used for legitimate recreational activities such as hunting and target-shooting. Some of my constituents collect guns for their value as antiques, and as personal mementos. And there is no doubt that some guns are used for illegal purposes, just as there is no doubt that a great many people in my constituency use guns to put food on the table.
What I am getting at is that devising a set of controls which will apply equally to people who live in highrise buildings in Toronto and to those who hunt and trap for a living in the High Arctic, is not easy. My main fear is that by attempting this big job the government has placed too much emphasis on conditions in the big cities at the expense of people who use guns as a tool by which to live.
Perhaps I can illustrate my point by the use of a few examples. The bill now contains provision for a police officer to enter a house without a warrant and seize any firearms. I realize that this could happen only under certain conditions, but it could happen. In a lot of cases that is a valuable provision. As several hon. members opposite have said, most violent crimes involving guns occur between people who know each other, often members of the same family. If a police officer feels tempers are running high, and removes the temptation of a gun, many deaths could be prevented.
Measures Against Crime
In a city having your gun removed is not a serious matter. Under the provisions of the legislation before us it could be reclaimed in due time. City people who legitimately own guns rarely use them more than several times a year, and then only for recreational purposes. But this is not the case in other parts of the country. For hunters and trappers there are certain critical times of the year. Ducks and geese fly over only during a short period of time. The same is true of migrating caribou herds. During these critical periods hunters will usually take food to last for several months. What would be the result if their guns were taken away during one of these critical periods? They and their dependants would face hunger, and the government would likely incur increased welfare costs.
Another factor should be taken into consideration. In a city the police are always handy and the courts are in operation all the time. It is fairly easy to fulfil whatever requirements the courts may stipulate to have a gun returned. This is not the case in areas where hunting is the major occupation. There are many villages in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and other places for that matter, where there is no permanent police station. Such places are served by travelling police officers, game officers, and circuit courts. Under these circumstances a hunter may lose the use of his gun for many months unless this bill is amended.
Another problem arises in the provision for a licence to own a shotgun or a rifle. Because of the expense and lack of demand people with the authority to issue licences will not be easily accessible to hunters, trappers, fishermen, propectors and so on. Hunters live in areas away from large centres of population, and they must travel great distances at great expense into remote territory at certain times of the year. It will be difficult for many hunters to go and get the required licence. As well, hunting communities are small. There may not be a priest, or a lawyer, or other person usually used as a guarantor handy to sign on application, let alone there being two there at the same time.
Many people will also have problems with these provisions in respect of licences because of the cost. This program evidently is supposed to pay for itself. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said in his remarks a few days ago that the estimate of the cost of processing a licence could run as high as $30. Hunting families, fishermen, and others who use guns to take part of their food do not usually have large cash incomes. If there is a large number of hunters in a family, of course this will be a major obstacle.
Then there is the age restriction. In the city it is a good idea to restrict access to guns to people over the age of 18. I agree with that. In cases where families participate in some recreational aspect of shooting the bill makes adequate provision for allowing licences to people over the age of 14. However, the provision for permits for hunters at age 14 will cause problems. This will cause problems among native families not only in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon but, I am sure, also in many of the northern parts of the provinces across this country.
12640	COMMONS DEBATES	April 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
As I have said on a couple of occasions before, guns are tools. In the hunting or trapping family they are part of everyday life, and no matter how safely they are stored they are always accessible to children. Because of this children must be taught to use guns safely and effectively at a very early age. It has been my experience that children are usually given their first gun at around 12, 13 or 14 years of age. They are trained in the use of guns very carefully by their parents who know how to use them, and safety is the number one point that is always stressed.
Other clauses in this bill attempt to regulate or control the circulation of guns by making it an offence to loan or sell a gun to someone who does not have a licence. That makes sense in the city. There are too few legitimate reasons for guns to be used that it is of only minor inconvenience to make sure that the required documents are on hand, and this can be done very easily in the city.
However, I should like to mention here that there is a long-standing tradition among hunters, trappers, and prospectors that a person will loan his tools; his guns, his traps, his sleeping bag, his dog team, his motorized toboggan, or whatever, to a person who is without these means of survival. By making it an offence to do this with one of the most necessary tools the government is destroying a tradition and adding hardship to people who may be in need of a gun to make a living during critical times of the year. That is the time of the migration of the cariboo, of migratory birds, and so on. These are problems that do not arise in the city.
The government should be aware that by trying to solve problems in one part of the country it is actually creating problems in other parts. I have mentioned in this House before that in cities, especially in Ottawa, we all know as members of parliament that we have to contend with red tape. Much of the time we have great difficulty in cutting across the red tape. In the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon we have another problem because there is a high ratio of civil servants to the general population. We have learned there that we not only have to cut tape traditionally like it is done here, but most of the time we have to cut the tape lengthwise instead of crosswise, and that is not easy.
There are other parts of the bill I feel are either too strict, not strict enough, or too vague. For example, the bill contains provision for a licence to be issued on the word of two guarantors. Why is there no mention of the applicant himself or herself proving that he or she is able to handle firearms safely, and why are there no provisions for public education about the dangers of firearms?
I have one other suggestion. As I understand it, much of this gun control legislation is aimed at preventing the "I didn't know it was loaded" type of accident. Would it not be possible to do the same thing and to replace much of this bill by requiring or making it mandatory that all guns have a trigger lock, keeping the guns locked up, and not easily accessible particularly to children? Such a lock, if kept in place at all times when a gun was not in use, would sharply reduce the number of accidental shootings and would provide a little time to think for the person who picks up a gun in the heat of an argument.
In addition I would like to see the hunters, trappers, prospectors and fishermen in the Northwest Territories

and the Yukon exempt from the licensing aspects of this bill. They should keep their firearms under lock and key at all times to prevent accidents.
Having regard to handguns, it is very important to people who work in my part of the Territories, and I am thinking of prospectors, pilots, hunters, trappers and so on who go out into the bush, that they be allowed to carry handguns not only for protection but as part of their survival gear. These people are not always in a position to carry a heavy rifle. There are times when they have to go out with a number of packs carrying their food, survival gear, and that kind of thing, and if you add a heavy rifle on top of their burden it becomes too much. That person is not going to endanger the life of any human being out there in the bush. By having a handgun this would be a convenience, and this is one other part of the bill that I think should be looked at carefully. I would like very much to have this aspect of the bill considered on behalf of the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
As I mentioned earlier before calling it five o'clock, I consider this bill to be another erosion of the rights of the native people of this country. It is an erosion of their aboriginal rights to hunt, trap, fish and so on. This is another area in which we are taking away the rights of these people without very much consultation. That is all I wish to say, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, much of what I have to say parallels that which has been said by my neighbour, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). However, there are a few areas he has not covered and a few examples he has not cited. I am sure we are on all fours on the manner in which we view this legislation.
What the hon. member has said, and what I had intended to say, in respect of the rights of the native peoples in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon brings up a question in my mind as to whether-and I am very happy to see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) in the House because this has perhaps not occurred to him-the provisions of this bill in so far they affect the native peoples of this country are constitutional. They have been granted by treaty in many significant instances the absolute right to hunt and fish on all unoccupied Crown lands. The Treaty of Paris guaranteed, in the case where no individual treaties exist, the absolute right to hunt and fish on all unoccupied Crown lands. This bill purports to interfere with that right which has been given to them by Her Majesty in the Treaty of Paris, and by the Government of Canada in certain specific treaties across this country.
This used to be a very serious constitutional question which in all probability the government did not even look at in drafting this bill, but I do not find that unusual with regard to this government particularly in view of the answers given by the minister to questions asked by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories in respect of the granting of permits. Had it consulted in depth the native organizations in this country in respect of all provisions of this bill, no doubt forceful views in respect of the absolute hunting rights of these people would have been
April 8, 1976

April 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
I might use the same argument when speaking of the overwhelming-I think that was his word-success of the parole system. The minister says that hundreds and thousands of paroles are granted under the existing system and only a very small percentage fail, again to use his own words. So in effect what he is arguing is that because of the great number of successful paroles that are granted, the few isolated incidents of crimes by parolees should not be the reason for putting the whole parole policy in the wastebasket. But that argument can be very effectively turned around and applied to the gun situation. I say that the number of illegal uses to which firearms are put by relatively few individuals in Canada should not be the reason for imposing these onerous provisions on the majority of law abiding citizens who own guns.
I should like to draw an incident to the attention of the minister when speaking of the right to use guns in Canada. Notwithstanding the passage of this bill-and I have no doubt it will pass with the majority on the opposite side- there will still be what I consider to be a very undesirable situation. I am not familiar with how it affects the rest of Canada, although I have heard one or two speeches from this side of the House drawing attention to the non-Canadians travelling in the country bringing guns into Canada.
I draw the minister's attention to the policy which exists as it relates to those travelling along the Alaska highway. There is a large number of U.S. citizens travelling along that highway, both to and from the state of Alaska, and a large part of that group is military. The practice of the government when such vehicles enter Canada is for the customs officials to ask for the disclosure of the possession of any weapons.
A very large percentage of there travellers carry handguns and those handguns are normally carried in car glove compartments. So what is the practice? The customs official takes the handgun, without any obligation to unload it, places it in a little plastic bag which he ties at the neck, and gives it back to the traveller who replaces it in his glove compartment. He is permitted to carry that handgun in the plastic bag in the glove compartment of his car as he travels from one end of the Alaska highway to the other. There is not even a seal on it. The bag is tied with a little red ribbon. For heaven's sake, it is a plastic bag. There is no trick to getting a handgun out of a plastic bag.
Here we are in the Parliament of Canada saying in effect that there should be no ownership of handguns by Canadian citizens without a doggone good excuse to have one, yet we are permitting thousands upon thousands of non-Canadians to carry handguns in Canada. This is absolutely ludicrous. It is a situation which commends itself for immediate investigation and rectification by the government.
Then we come to the question of emergency gear when travelling in sparsely populated areas. Again this is something with which I have some experience. While it would be discomforting to me to have to fly in isolated areas without a hangun, I can live with it. However, I would sooner carry a handgun, which I have been doing now for some 24 years in the Yukon on every flight that I have ever gone on in my own aircraft. But now that will not be

permitted. Now I am bound to carry a rifle, if I could get a licence to carry it, but there is no way I can get a permit any longer to carry a handgun as part of the survival gear in the aircraft.


Mr. O'Connell:: Sure you can.


Erik Nielsen: No, I cannot. I have checked with those who will be asked to carry the responsibility of administering this law. I was told that I will have to get along with a rifle from now on. I do not see why I should have to live with that, but I will live with it and I will carry a rifle if, as I said, I can get a licence to do so, and I do not think it will be all that difficult.


An hon. Member:: Get a guarantor.


Erik Nielsen: That is a whole new aspect to the bill. Who is to guarantee? I always encourage trips by members of parliament to the north. The more MPs who go across the 60th parallel up to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon the better I like it, because only then will they understand the circumstances. The hon. member who intervened in a good natured way raised the question of guarantors. Who in God's white earth up there will find a guarantor for an Inuit on King Christian Island? Where are we going to find a guarantor on Baffin Island, other than in Alert or some other place?
If a family from Old Crow, for instance, is out trapping on Crow Flats, as they do for months and months, where is the Eskimo going to get his guarantor or even the paper to sign which would let him have a rifle? This is impractical. I can see this kind of regulation-as my neighbour, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories said-applied in Toronto and in Montreal. My God, I see the need for it in Montreal. I can see the need for it in Vancouver or Hamilton.


Walter David Baker: Or in the Liberal caucus.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, the Liberal caucus, but by George, Sir, I cannot see the need for it in the 1,500,000 square miles above the 60th parallel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Forty per cent of Canada is populated by a total of 75,000 people, and the government is going to administer this law all over that area for the same purpose as it would in Hamilton or Toronto. Sir, this is completely impractical. I hope that the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice, whoever is responsible for drafting the amendments, will make an absolute exception of the native peoples in the two northern territories whose very livelihood depends on owning and using a firearm. I hope that an exception will be made before the bill gets to committee.
The Solicitor General spoke this afternoon of the government incorporating amendments into the bill as a result of suggestions made from this side. I hope not only the native question in the two northern territories will be made an exception, but also that an additional exception will be made, so far as handguns are concerned, for big game guides, outfitters, prospectors, and others who are
April 8, 1976

required by virtue of their jobs to exist in the northern wilderness. I suggest that the provisions with respect to licensing are simply impractical as far as the native peoples are concerned, and an exception should be made in that regard as well.
I hope that when this kind of legislation is planned in the future there will be some consultation with the people of the north through their elected representatives who sit on the respective territorial councils. The day is long gone when this kind of legislation can be prepared without that kind of consultation, notwithstanding what the Solicitor General says, both in this House and in the pamphlet he distributed to hon. members and others entitled "Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Gun Control Legislation".
In that pamphlet the question is asked: was the hunting community consulted before this bill was drafted? The answer given is: it was. I say it was not. Certainly it was not in the Yukon, and it was not in the Northwest Territories. The answer goes on to say the following:
Wide consultations preceded the drafting of the proposed legislation and many briefs from organizations of responsible gun-users and other interested bodies were received.
Prominent among those who submitted briefs were the Canadian Wildlife Federation ...
In almost the same mail in which I received that interesting pamphlet from the minister I received a critique from the Canadian Wildlife Federation dated March of 1976 analyzing Bill C-83, and on page 10 of that critique the committee of the Canadian Wildlife Federation says the following:
Finally, the committee questions the manner in which the government prepared this draft legislation, draft legislation that has been in preparation for well over a year. Despite the fact that one of its main features would impose a licensing requirement on some two million Canadians, there has been no meaningful consultation with interested groups, and the over-all approach the government intended was a matter of mystery until the bill was tabled. The CWF offered to explain its position and to help in the collection of relevant information, but its offer was not even acknowledged.
There we have the Canadian Wildlife Federation denying the words of the minister in the House today, and denying the printed pamphlet, produced at government expense, saying that the government had consulted with the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Obviously they are at odds. Perhaps the government feels that tabling and exposing the bill is consultation, but that is not my idea of consultation, and it obviously is not that of the Canadian Wildlife Federation.
I do not think my mail has been unique, and I do not think the mail of any hon. members of this House, whether they be Liberal, NDP, Social Credit or Conservative, has been unique. I have received more letters and more complaints from my constituents on the gun control feature of this bill than on any other single subject. It has exceeded the correspondence I have received on such matters as abortion, capital punishment, and the like. In all my time here I have never had such an inundation of objections to a piece of legislation as the objections I have received with respect to this bill. That fact surely has been conveyed by the Liberal caucus to the cabinet, and every speech which
Measures Against Crime
has been made from this side which I have heard or read has conveyed the same thing. Surely that must carry some kind of message to the government that the legislation is lacking, that it is improper, and that there is a great need to amend it.
My voice here and the voice of my neighbour from the Northwest Territories are two small voices in this Chamber when it comes to legislation of this kind. There are only two members here for that 40 per cent of Canada, so perhaps we do not carry much weight, but there are 75,000 to 80,000 Canadian souls living in the north whose livelihood for the most part depends on the right to the free use of firearms.
I urge upon the government now, in the absence of the consultation there should have been, to heed my words and those of my neighbour from the Northwest Territories, and to incorporate the amendments we have both suggested into this bill. Otherwise it is going to work extreme hardship and, perhaps not inconceivably tragedy on certain families and individuals in the two northern territories.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the second reading debate on Bill C-83, many members have departed from the discussion on the principle of the bill to take out some excerpts, isolate them from their context, interpret them subjectively and as a result draw false and erroneous conclusions, losing sight of the true spirit of the legislation. I therefore feel I must take part in this debate to reiterate and analyze briefly Bill C-83 as a whole and its various general provisions.
Although I want to stress the intent of the bill, this does not mean that I think that some of its provisions may not be amended at the later stages of its study, so as to perfect it and make it more consistent with reality. In fact, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) already suggested that some amendments could be made to that effect. Rising crime rates, including rates of violent crime, are bringing home to Canadians that changes in the criminal law and in the administration of criminal justice are needed if the best possible protection is to be afforded to the public. The whole apparatus of criminal justice exists first and foremost to protect society against the effects of crime. Crime in Canada is not out of control, but it is much easier to maintain control than to regain it. It is for'this reason that the Government is now putting forward the Peace and Security Program, a series of measures to amend the criminal law and improve the administration of criminal justice. These measures are designed to come to grips with the increasing incidence of crime in Canadian society and to meet the need the public feels for a greater measure of protection.
Public concerns focus upon the increase in violent crime; the difficulty encountered by the law officers in contending with the "untouchables" of organized crime; repeated crimes committed by accused persons released on bail; a few spectacular crimes committed by persons released mandatorily from federal institutions, by parolees and by offenders on temporary absence from prison; disturbances and hostage-taking in penitentiaries; repeated crimes by offenders who seem to be chronically violent; and finally, the tragic and spectacular crimes involving the use of firearms.

April 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
Protection against violent acts will precisely be provided in this bill through the following means: first, the provision of increased resources in crime prevention; second, a stricter program of gun control, including increased penalties for those using firearms while making a criminal offence, special provisions to ensure control over dangerous offenders, a real concerted attack against organized crime, by making police investigations easier through wiretap and by establishing a provincial commission of inquiry into criminal activities.
On that matter, incidentally, changes might probably be made to this legislation, in view of the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada declaring the Quebec Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime as constitutional, and finally, the imposing of more efficient selection procedures for freeing violent criminals out in society and the exercise of a better surveillance of these offenders after their release.
We know that the program will also include plans to improve the training of policemen and prison personnel; speed up the building of smaller prisons which will eventually replace the fortress-like present institutions; improve the police special training programs to help law enforcement personnel cope with critical situations; assist police forces by introducing new policies and preventive measures; evaluate the effects of violent crime on its victims; get a better knowledge of the public response to the administration of justice and criminal law.
The House has already passed the bill, now before the Senate, which aims at amending the Criminal Code by, among other things, tightening the conditions for release under bail and correcting the abuses inherent in this system; making more difficult for the organized crime boss to bleach the money he has acquired through criminal activities; and changing rape trial procedure to ensure better protection for the victim.
At the present time the government is considering views expressed by the Law Reform Commission of Canada on some aspects of criminal law and its enforcement, and national consultation is going on to pass new legislation with respect to young offenders. The "Order and Security Program" therefore should be looked upon as a step in an ongoing process, not as the ultimate goal of the government with respect to the protection of society against violent crime.
It is appropriate to bear in mind that criminal justice is essentially a control mechanism and that it is not in itself responsible for the incidence or prevention of criminality in our society. Criminal justice concurs in limiting the incidence of criminality through the awe arising from the penalty it imposes on criminals and in preventing criminality through police action. What maintains order in society is the set of values of society and the efforts made to keep up in every citizen the conviction that he is responsible for his actions and his environment.
With regard to gun control, it is striking to realize that the public is increasingly concerned about the rise in gun-related crimes and incidents. Statistics show that murders committed with guns increased from 178 in 1970 to 272 in 1974. Indeed, guns are used in close to half of the

murder cases. Moreover, each year guns are involved in more than one third of the 2,500 suicides and in more than 100 accidental deaths.
The present legislation controlling possession of handguns is among the best in the world. On the other hand, the owners of some 10 million long-barrel guns such as hunting rifles and shotguns are subjected to few restrictions on their use and handling. The government shares the public concern with respect to the role of guns in crimes, suicides and accidents. Therefore the Criminal Code has to be amended and other measures have to be proposed to control the general avaibility of guns, to promote increased public responsibility in relation to firearms, and to increase the penalties for the use of guns during the commission of offences.
However, the new legislation does not forbid either legitimate ownership or use of firearms for hunting and target-shooting. In the case of sanctions, the new provisions of this legislation provide for higher maximum sentences when used as offensive weapons. In addition, whenever an individual uses an offensive weapon in committing an indictable offense, he will be liable to a mandatory minimum penalty at least one year and up to 14 years, to run consecutively to any other.
With regard to arms seizure, the police is not now permitted to do so without warrant, except if a crime has already been committed or is being committed. In addition, the law allows the obtention of a warrant if there are good grounds to believe that possession of such weapons jeopardizes someone's interest and security. This provision will be extended to authorize a policeman to seize a weapon without warrant if he reasonably believes that an individual's security is endangered, and if there is no other way out. Thus, a policeman can seize a weapon when a threatening situation arises, for instance, in the case of domestic quarrels which contribute to one third of murders in Canada.
With respect to firearms availibility, we know that a great many of the 10 million guns in Canada are held by people who no longer have any use for them. The government must start a vast information and amnesty campaign to recover these useless weapons. The purpose of this campaign is to inform the Canadian people of the responsibilities underlying the possession of firearms and to encourage them to give over voluntarily these weapons at the nearest police station if they do not want to keep them. As far as prohibited or restricted firearms are concerned, the Criminal Code now requires the registration of firearms such as handguns and so on, and it allows the possession of such weapons only at home or at the place of business.
Under the new provisions of Bill C-83, the registration procedure for restricted firearms will become much stricter. The applicants will have to prove that they need these weapons even before a certificate is delivered. The only admissible reasons are the protection of life, legal position, authorized target practice and the collecting of such weapons in good faith. Some weapons are already prohibited. The legislation will extend this prohibition to cover weapons which were restricted before such as automatic weapons, weapons with sawed-off barrels and second-hand weapons which are not very expensive and not very accu-
April 8, 1976

rate, called "Saturday Night Specials". As far as the permit is concerned in Canada, the registration of all weapons seems neither possible nor really effective.
This legislation does not provide for the registration of long-barrelled guns but for the issuance of licences. This government believes it is more important to ensure that those who possess firearms or ammunition or those who want to acquire them are fit to do so. Therefore, anyone who owns a firearm or ammunition will require a license. Once more, it is not necessary to register them. This license will be valid for five years and will be issued only if the licensing officer is satisfied that the applicant's background warrants such issuance.
Further, the applicant must submit the statements of two guarantors who have known him for at least two years and who certify that to the best of their knowledge, the applicant is not unfit to get such a license. The fees collected from licensees will cover the cost of this system. People who are under 18 years of age who wish to use a firearm must apply for a special permit that will be issued subject to very strict conditions. This permit will be issued only for target practice, in hunting or in target practice training. Applications for a permit made by people who are under 18 must be signed by two guarantors, one being a parent or a close relative of the applicant. Special provision is made in the legislation to enable people under 18 to possess firearms for the purpose of hunting game for food or family support if, in given areas, hunting and -trapping are part of the way of life. In such cases, the issuance of the permit will be free of charge in order not to increase the financial burden on these people. A permit is required for all firearms and ammunition dealers, wholesalers and retailers, importers and manufacturers. All these people must maintain records of all their transactions concerning arms and ammunition. These records will be regularly checked, and the legislation will also provide for other means to improve present import controls.
Also as regard firearms, in particular the legal responsibility, we must not simply scrutinize the case of those who possess fire arms and ammunition. We must also ensure that permit-holders are not minusing firearms. Careless handling and storage can lead to a maximum five-year jail term. As far as administration is concerned, it should be noted that control measures described in the bill require a flexible administration system. A large number of local registrars and licensing officers will be located throughout Canada, so that every Canadian may apply easily. In most cases, there is ample provision for appeals where a citizen feels his permit has been unfairly denied or cancelled.
When the government looked for ways of better protecting the public against violent crimes, they realized at once action was needed in respect of firearms. Availability is a natural incentive to crime. Moreover, firearms play an increasing role in various kinds of murders committed in Canada. Strict measures were needed to deter criminals from using guns. Prompt action was needed to ensure responsible possession and use of firearms.
There were some suggestions that carrying firearms was a right and attacks made on the government for attempting to regulate another area of the average Canadian's life. But
Measures Against Crime
these censors must recognize that firearms are too often an instrument of crime and a cause for accident. Failure to regulate their use would leave free hand to criminals and expose the public to the worst tragedies. Opponents of the program have nothing better to propose to prevent firearms abuse.
For that reason, the government had to propose the various measures contained in Bill C-83. It should be stressed that the right to own a firearm is not abolished. Those practising hunting or target shooting, young people desiring to join the militia or a gun club, all have the right to own a fire arm. Simply, they must obtain a permit. This will prevent firearms from falling into the hands of some potentially dangerous persons. The disadvantages of control are very little compared with the lives thus saved.
As for the dangerous delinquents, we know that for some ten years there has been a quite substantial increase in violent crimes in Canada. The new legislation is aimed at restraining the progress of criminality including rape and other sexual offences. It considers the creation of a group of dangerous delinquents liable to indefinite sentences, that is life sentences which could be periodically reviewed by the National Parole Board.
The bill wishes to abolish the present provisions of the Criminal Code concerning recidivism and dangerous sexual offences. It provides new provisions empowering the courts to impose an indefinite sentence in the case of all dangerous delinquents including sexual offenders. The present provisions of the code do not extend to all groups of dangerous sexual offences.
Once the offender is convicted, the court is asked to impose an indefinite sentence which will require the approval of the provincial Attorney General to be implemented. The indefinite sentence therefore replaces all other sentences provided by the law for crimes committed by dangerous offenders. The court can impose such a sentence if the offender has been convicted of an offence for which he can be sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years or more, and which include violence or an attempt at violence or a behaviour dangerous or potentially dangerous for the life of another person or a likelihood of inflicting severe psychological damage to another person.
Before a request for an indefinite sentence can be made however, the approval of the provincial Attorney General must be obtained. When making such a request, the court must be convinced that the offender constitutes a threat to the life, security or welfare of the public according to evidence or a repetitive behaviour pattern showing that the offender cannot control his actions and could cause injuries in the future, or a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender as to the consequences of his behaviour, or a pattern of excessively brutal behaviour.
An indefinite sentence can be imposed if the offender has been convicted of rape, attempted rape, sexual intercourse or attempted sexual intercourse with a female under 16, indecent assault on female or male, or gross indecency, or if the offender has shown that he cannot repress his sexual impulses and will probably cause injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his sexual impulses.

April 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
The proposed legislation provides for a certain number of safeguards for the offender, including the right to call as a witness any psychiatrist, psychologist or criminologist and the right to appeal the decision of the court. On the other hand, the Parole Board should review the case of a dangerous offender, first of all, at the latest three months after the verdict and then every two years, in order to determine whether the offender should be released in the community on condition and in such a case, under what conditions.
A periodical review appears necessary because the punishment does not include either the termination date, nor a fixed date of eligibility for parole, as is the case for all other offenders. The Parole Board will not release a dangerous offender unless two members of the regional community are admitted to the proceedings related to this subject.
Bill C-83 also includes measures relating to crime detection and electronic listening device. Six main amendments are involved in this bill. Courts may allow interception of communications with regard to all criminal offences instead of the limited number of crimes specified in the existing law. Further, any offence, criminal or not. may warrant an authorization, when such a offence seems to be part of an organized crime. Evidence derived directly or indirectly from an unlawful interception may be admitted by the court. This restores the common law rule in part but the unauthorized intercepted communication itself remains inadmissible and the act of interception punishable as a criminal offence. Court authorization for electronic surveillance will be extended from thirty to sixty days, experience having shown that the average interception is likely to last approximately sixty days. Evidence of an offence other than one for which the authorization was obtained will be made admissible in prosecuting that other offence.
Reporting by the media of an intercepted communication that has been revealed in open court will not constitute an offence. These changes are of course designed to increase the effectiveness of the police: still, the new powers should not be abused in order not to encroach upon the individual, right to princacy. Rigourous sanctions must apply, criminal and civil, in all cases of violation of these rights in line with the protection of the individual's rights to privacy granted by Parliament in 1974.
As to the provisions of Bill C-85 dealing with special crime inquiries the proposed amendements add to the tra-ditionnal means by enabling the provincial authorities to create special commissions of inquiry when it is deemed neccessary to obtain knowledge about crime or criminal organizations, which is not likely to be acquired through the normal investigatory procedures. Those measures will no doubt be discussed in committee with respect to special crime inquiries, considering the recent judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada declaring constitutional the Quebec Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime.
With respect to the custody and release of inmates, the bill includes amendements aimed at ensuring a better control of inamates in penitentiaries and bringing about amendements with respect to their paroling by way of full paroles, day paroles or temporary absences. Certain procedural safeguards will be introduced into parole hearings so

the decision making of the Board will meet the expectations of criminal justice.
Those safeguards will call for the help of the applicant, the communication to him of additional information and the giving of the grounds in the event of the decision refusing him parole. These will be defined in regulations and will be phased in over a period of several years. Finally, Bill C-83 includes provisions dealing with crime prevention, police prevention, victimization, concerning studies every 18 months over the next five years to assess more accurately the incidence and effects of crime on victims, and with the defensible space, or accelarating work on the development of better knowledge on target hardening and environmental design. Also, there will be strategies to increase the crime resistant qualify of communities.
Those are briefly all the measures contained in Bill C-83 the principle and intention of which I approuve while awaiting its consideration in committee where witnesses will be heard and where in all likeliness amendments can be introduced to improve certain aspects, particularly those dealing with special inquiries on organized crime.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat recognized the danger of the criminal to the law-abiding citizens of Canada but he did not recognize the greatest danger facing them today, that is, the government which sits opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: This bill merely reconfirms the fact that the government is incompetent to govern and too willing and determined to dictate. Bill C-83 would establish another bureaucracy which could not be fairly administered across this country but would be costly, inconvenient, a burden to policemen, judges and courts, and would place unwarranted restrictions upon experienced users and owners of guns who have not broken any law, as well as on all adult Canadians.
Aside from the inconsistencies in this legislation, which I intend to enlarge upon later, it has created a justifiable fear in the minds of Canadians. They are concerned because in this bill they see another of their freedons removed. Criminals and those bent on crime will not let gun licensing or registration forestall them in their efforts to maim, murder, steal, kidnap, escape custody, threaten guards and other law officers, or commit any other illegal act. This bill will not prevent or deter crimes caused by passion, anger, revenge, or by any planned or sudden desire to get even.
Owners of rifles or shotguns would be compelled to apply for a licence to continue ownership by completing an application form, not described, which could infringe on any human right the government chose, Two guarantors would be required to qualify an applicant for such a licence-their status is not stated. The guarantors would be subject to the discretion of a local firearms registrar, who in turn would be governed by guidelines to be laid down by order-in-council at some future date; the owner
April 8, 1976

must pay a fee, not stipulated. If the fee levied on such applicants does not pay the entire cost of the bureaucracy, all taxpayers will be called upon to make up the difference. It has been estimated that the implementation of Bill C-83 would require 500 additional policemen, 50 in the province of Alberta, plus necessary administrative staff. That is another example of how the government exercises restraint.
What is meant by "safe storage?" On whose interpretation of "safe storage" will the record of a citizen depend? There could be any number of definitions applied to what is or is not "safe." Locks can be broken on firearm cupboards or cases, doors can be forced, weapons held by licensed persons can be taken at gunpoint by those brandishing illegal or unlicensed firearms. When a home without firearms, or with firearms "safely" stored, due to the persuasion or enforcement of this legislation, is robbed, and its inhabitants are beaten, murdered, threatened or kidnapped, it is a little bit late to start defining whether or not their weapons of defence were safely stored or whether or not they should have beem granted a licence. The government will have rendered them helpless and defenceless. Too often innocent bystanders are victims of criminals, a fact apparently acceptable to this government.
What is meant by "need" of a firearm? Depending on conditions, area, situations, and countless other factors, who can really say whether or not a firearm is needed? This must be clarified because even collectors and dealers possess guns and other firearms as a "need" in their business or hobby.
What constitutes suspicion in the minds of policemen that a firearm might be used to commit a crime? How will police control firearms which have not been registered or licensed-do they have to search every household in Canada? Anyone who holds a grudge, who covets another's right to own a firearm, or for some other reason, could inform a policeman, or even a licence officer, that a neighbour or an enemy had acted in a suspicious manner,-and that person's home could be searched, without a warrant, and his licensed weapon seized without any legitimate reason whatsoever. Why harass law-abiding Canadians in a so-called aim at controlling the use of firearms?
What is the ruling for Canadians who work outside this country or who are employed away from their homes and perhaps only return there once or twice a year, or less often? Their firearms are in their homes. Is another member of an owner's family permitted to purchase a licence or register a gun in his absence? If the owner must take these steps in person, how long does he have to comply with these regulations? My constituents have submitted too numerous doubts and complaints to mention in the time allowed here.
How can any member of this House be so naive and disinterested in his electors to accept this bill in its present form? To add to the sham embodied in this bill, some government members have given a very weak excuse to get it into committee where necessary changes can and will be made when various organizations present their views. I refer to the offer of the Alberta Fish and Game Association to help in the preparation of this legislation. That offer was refused. My hon. friend from the Yukon has already brought this aspect to the minister's attention. Perhaps
Measures Against Crime
some Canadians can be fooled by that statement, but fortunately I know a little too much about the way standing committees operate under this government. We all know here that, on more than one occasion, when government back-benchers did not agree with a bill being studied in committee, they were removed from that committee. This is democracy Liberal style.
Perhaps it would not be unreasonable, either to remind everyone in this House that government members outnumber opposition members on every standing committee. That could be an understandable policy since the government has a majority, but the deplorable fact is that those Liberal MPs either will not or are not permitted to accept or approve suggestions of opposition members, regardless of their merit or what positive effect they would have on the majority of the general public. To say that my faith in the procedures followed in committees has deteriorated considerably each year in the short period I have been here is nothing but the truth. Most members are on committees because of their desire to work to improve legislation. I am well aware of their disillusionment.
It is not hard to figure out why the government enforced closure on Bill C-83 to get it into committee where those who oppose any part of it will not be given an opportunity to express their opinions. The government should know the people do not want this type of legislation; the government does not want to listen to elected representatives ouline their constituents' opinions or perhaps offer positive changes; no, the government only knows how to abuse the privilege of power; to silence those trying to do their duty; to shove legislation into committee; to pretend it is concerned about the many clubs, associations, and individuals who oppose some of the gun control clauses of Bill C-83 by extolling the virtues of committee amendments. That is the thinking of the cabinet, of the Minister of Justice, (Mr. Basford) and indeed of most of the Liberal backbenchers.
The government can exercise punishment when dealing with Canadians, most of whom are good citizens, but the same government backs off and cringes because it is inhuman to punish criminals, the law-breakers, those who feel this country owes them everything even though they give it nothing, and if they cannot obtain what they want without exerting themselves, they tote a firearm to be sure they do. Oh no, it would never do to hand out stiff sentences to that type of person-this government prefers to hinder and hamper, harass and frustrate a large portion of the population!
The bill sponsored by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) makes sense and conforms to the wishes of the people who have made their views known to me, and they are not all within my constituency either. Place the law where it can and will deter crime, and make that law a law which can fulfill its purpose.
I say that Bill C-83 would remove some of the security legitimate citizens of this country still have in today's so-called "Just Society." In the last eight years our society has deteriorated morally, physically, mentally to a degree, as a direct result of the permissive and ineffective legislation shoved through by the government. Government policies have encouraged immorality, indecency, obscenity;
12648

April 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
and its over-financed Crown corporation, the CBC, emphasizes those policies by producing and importing examples of vulgarity, indecency, anything which is sacrilegious, stressing the illegal use of drugs, of alcohol, and violence, particularly the use of firearms.
When members of this House protest about these shows on behalf of their constituents they receive the stock answer, in a bored and disinterested voice, that the government cannot interfere in the operations of a Crown corporation, or that it is not the corporation's policy to reveal certain facts. Why not be honest and admit to this House and to the people of Canada that the government is neither interested in nor concerned about this nation and its people, or the direction in which Canada is being pushed- on a journey always downgrade?
I cannot understand how the conscientious MPs on the government side of this House, some of whom I know to be men or women of principle and decency, can go along with this type of bill. Have they explained its ramifications and curtailments, its inconvenience and vagueness, to their constituents? Do they listen to and act upon the requests or demands of their electors? Surely there is one cabinet member who knows inside himself that he does not agree with this dictatorial legislation. To be fair, members of the cabinet are expected to support all government bills, but does their exalted position render them immune to reactions of those who put them into parliament in the first place? They could not be ministers of the Crown had they not first been given the confidence and trust of their constituents, the people who pay their salaries and benefits.
The Minister of Justice is following the same pattern of previous legislation by lumping several positive and acceptable measures into Bill C-83 with controversial, unacceptable, and ineffective rules and regulations on gun control. Apparently this is another attempt on the part of the government to convince Canadians that those of us who oppose some of the clauses on gun control are not in favour of those dealing with crime. Mr. Speaker, my constituents are not lead down the garden path so easily; they learned from experience with earlier legislation foisted on them by this government.
I would urge every member of this House to explain to those whom they represent just what this bill will demand. No individual should misunderstand a measure dealt with in this House simply because his MP camouflaged the negative aspects and emphasized the positive and acceptable ones. The government has confused people more than enough with its red tape and bureaucracies.
Before this bill reaches the committee stage-where we all work hard and do our best to protect people-the gun control clauses should be removed and presented separately, and hopefully strengthened in the right areas.
Why make it more difficult for young persons to be taught how to handle and use a firearm safely? Careless handling of these weapons causes many tragedies. Young people today have enough problems without taking away one of their useful pleasures. Can we expect young Canadians, or anyone for that matter, to improve their way of life when those who break the laws are not appropriately punished? The Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues have forgotten the word "punishment" and how it
should be applied to law offenders-they prefer to curtail the rights of those who obey the laws.
Recently it has been reported that the Minister of Justice believes some offences under the Criminal Code are outdated, are Victorian, and should be removed-another move to protect criminals and indecent citizens. What that will do is encourage more crimes because there will be even less legal control of delinquents. Just because several years have passed since certain acts were included in the Criminal Code does not mean that society has to lower its standards. That is the obvious aim of the government-to make everything which is indecent and inhuman, behaviour even below the level of animals, legal in our Canada, to remove some necessary offences from the Criminal Code, but initiate new ones to curtail legitimate activities of decent people. What do Canadian voters as a whole think of that?
This parliament should tighten up and enforce the laws we now have, and implement effective legislation aimed at those who need to be controlled under our legal system. Did government members come to the House of Commons to fight for the wrongs of the minority of Canadians, or to fight for the rights of the majority who live within the law? Think about that question-my constituents do.
On the positive side no doubt most Canadians who abide by the laws of our land want penalties for the illegal use of firearms. Weapons such as knives, clubs, tools, and countless other objects can never be registered, licensed or placed under control. Bill C-83 will not curb murderers because anyone intent on killing will use any weapon available.
If the sentence for a crime committed with a firearm were scaled according to the offence; sale of firearms were restricted, one of the sensible clauses of this Bill; and if offenders were punished as they ought to be, the Minister of Justice would have received support in the House of Commons and from the Canadian public. Think how much more logical and reasonable, how much less expensive, how easier to administer Bill C-83 would be if it were directed toward the law-breakers? Mr. Speaker, is this too much to expect; is this too easy for this heavy-handed government to accept?
The government prefers to involve the entire adult population of this country through cumbersome, ineffective, vague, unacceptable, and unnecessary measures, some of which are already in force under provincial legislation. This bill duplicates the laws now on the provincial statutes. Why double up on the licence requirement and the cost? The legislation should not have been formulated at all until negotiated agreements had been entered into with every provincial government and territory.
Rather than face up to its responsibilities by introducing policies and legislation which would adequately bolster our flagging economy and help those on or below the poverty line, the government goes out of its way to create situations which drive a certain segment of our population into crime. Bills with the frightening impact of Bill C-83 perhaps do upset people to the degree that they forget about this country's economic mess temporarily, but let us never forget that Canadians are intelligent and have long memories, perhaps into the year 1978 or 1979.

April 8, 1976

People who want to earn an honest living for themselves and to provide for their families do not turn to crime, even though they hand back too much of their earnings to a spendthrift government. Why does anyone rob another? It is usually to obtain money or a thing of value to sell. Why are so many able-bodied Canadians today unwilling to accept the jobs offered? One cannot blame those who do not believe they should work for their living because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said those who do not want to work need not do so. How true that is under the programs of his government. To encourage laziness and destroy incentive fosters crime. When criminals are not punished, and I mean punished, when in prison, they look to prisons for their livelihood, and why not? They are not compelled to work there either.
Instead of spending the time of this House on legislation to restrict our people's freedoms, the government should be bringing in legislation to provide work, to see that those who are able do work before they receive benefits, and to deal with law-breakers as criminals instead of coddling them as if they were privileged.
To get to the root of crime and criminals one must consider the moral standards of a country, how our fellow-man is treated, and what has turned a good citizen into a law-breaker. Rehabilitation of prisoners is important and necessary, but more important are the maintenance and rehabilitation of people before they are lead or driven along that downward road. Many offences are committed because of frustration, permissiveness, domination, insecurity, malnutrition, improper conditions, with no future goal.
First offenders are entitled to careful treatment, humane discipline, and an opportunity eventually to return to mingle with their friends, neighbours and families, to work to better themselves. Very often ex-inmates return to lives of crime simply because they know they will be afforded every comfort in prison, and little punishment for another offence. One never hears of an escapee or a former prisoner failing to commit a crime for want of a weapon.
This bill would place restrictions on millions in a lame attempt to trap the minority who are bent on breaking the law. Punishment is meted out to legitimate citizens to protect delinquents, who do not earn their keep, so law-abiding Canadians pay once more.
Many of my constituents have expressed doubts and asked countless questions about Bill C-83. Does the government not realize how difficult it will be to administer this vague and inadequate legislation? Did no one, not even within cabinet, stop long enough to think what the cost would be and how policemen would be hampered, while citizens are harassed, by these measures? Our police are faced with too many risks to their lives now, as well as with escapees who do not honour life. Why should they when their own is not at stake? Already-over-burdened officers of the law will be loaded down with innumerable additional investigations and doubts under this bill.
People are wondering what the next federal infringement on their basic rights and fundamental freedoms will be. My people want to know why the ideas and recommendations of one person or of a small group are accepted and
Measures Against Crime
legislated by the government while the suggestions, opinions, and pleas of millions of taxpayers are ignored. Even cabinet ministers were elected to parliament to listen to their constituents and to heed the majority of Canadians on important issues like this. In their comfortable pews, in which they are untouchable and unreachable inside or outside this Chamber, have they forgotten completely why they are here? I want to remind them that they are here to serve Canada and her people, not to turn our country into a dictatorship just to satisfy their or their colleagues' whims. Parliament's duty and role should be to legislate for the betterment of Canada and Canadians and uphold democracy. This government, Mr. Speaker, has become too accustomed to shoving measures through this House and committees.
The Minister of Justice and his colleagues could still redeem some of the respect they have lost and improve the image they have marred. They could do this by supporting the amendment by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and regain a degree of the faith of the people of this country. They could do so by one simple procedure-divide Bill C-83 by placing the gun control provisions in a separate bill. Human nature admires anyone who admits he is wrong; everyone is entitled to some mistakes and misjudgments. Mr. Speaker, it takes a big man to admit his failures, and I would hope that the government is big enough in the right way to reconsider Bill C-83 and our requests.
If the government refuses to go along with the reasonable proposal to divide Bill C-83, all the excuses, camouflages, coverups, yes even telephones calls, or personal representations, will not and cannot turn it into a responsible and dependable government.
The government has a lot of answers to give. Why did the cabinet not accept the offer of fish and game associations to assist in drafting suitable gun legislation? Has the government already started to hire personnel to administer this program? Is the reported estimate of 900 employees going to be required to implement these laws? These are only a few of the questions not answered; there will be many more if this bill is passed in its present form.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-83, the peace and security package of legislation which the government has brought before the House. I believe legislation to control crime is being demanded by our Canadian people all across this country.
This bill deals with many aspects of our criminal justice system. We know of course these measures are not a total answer to the problem of crime. The crime rate has increased by about 31 per cent between 1970 and 1974. These measures are but the tools with which the police forces and our courts can deal with crime more effectively. The total problem relates to many aspects of our society including our family life, the media, the attitudes of our society, housing, our education programs, unemployment and our whole value system. Although the steps we take in this legislation are important and necessary, surely they do not represent the total answer because that is a much wider question.
12650

Measures Against Crime
It is interesting to note that in this session of parliament we have already passed Bill C-71 to tighten up the bail laws and provide for better security of people in our communities in respect of dangerous persons. A person charged with serious offences or charged a second time on a serious offence while on bail will have to show why he should be granted bail.
The peace and security legislation before us now makes a new provision related to dangerous offenders which will replace the present law related to habitual criminals and dangerous sex offenders. The penalty provided under the section relating to dangerous offenders will be indeterminate and will apply to persons involved in crimes of personal violence or sex related crimes such as rape, indecent assault, and gross indecency, crimes which carry a penalty of 10 years or more. Safeguards are provided for this very severe penalty by the necessity of an application to the provincial attorney general of the province involved for this offence.
Another safeguard for the accused will be that after the first three years of the sentence the National Parole Board would review the sentence at least every two years to make sure that a person is not put away indefinitely under unreasonable circumstances. Likewise, the community to which the person under an indeterminate sentence would be paroled would be protected because the parole board would have two members added to it from the area to which the offender might return.
The legislation before us increases the powers of the police to deal with organized crime by giving more power to wiretap phone-calls for longer periods and the removal of the necessity to notify people that their phones have been tapped. I understand the complaints which have been made by the police in this type of case during the last few years. If the police were not completely sure they would get enough evidence to secure a conviction in the one series of wiretaps they would not do it because they would have to notify the criminal within 90 days, and therefore he would know he was being investigated.
I believe the public's right to privacy will be adequately protected by the necessity for an application to a court for the permission to wiretap. That is of course provided for by this legislation and under the existing legislation. It seems to me that this provision after its application for a few years should be reviewed by the government to make sure it is not being abused.
These are a few of the provisions of this bill. There are many others such as those relating to crime commissions and parole and the Parole Board. However, part of this legislation has been the gun control section of the bill. Even last year before we had this peace and security legislation before us and Senator Cameron's bill relating to gun control was before the other place, I received many letters and inquiries from constituents concerning gun control.
I believe that the public consciousness with regard to the whole question of gun control has been heightened by two tragic incidents which occurred in high schools in Ottawa and in Brampton this past year. The hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) spoke the other night in

the House and described in a very vivid way those tragic incidents which occurred in Brampton in his constituency. These were dramatic and tragic events which were reported on front pages from coast to coast, but they are not isolated ones.
In 1974 some 1,500 people died in Canada from gun shot wounds. That is a 30 per cent increase since 1970. Firearms were used in half of Canada's 543 murders in 1974, and in at least one third of the 15,000 robberies which occur each year. A recent public opinion poll showed that over 80 per cent of Canadians favour registration of firearms. However, in spite of this large percentage favouring some form of gun control, a large number of people are very concerned that this legislation will not be totally effective. I have received a large number of letters, petitions, and inquiries from fishing and hunting associations and gun clubs in my constituency.
There seem to be several misunderstandings of the legislation which I think are worth mentioning. For example, some people believe that all guns will be banned. They will not. Some believe that all guns will be confiscated. They will not. Others believe that all guns will be registered. They will not. Some people believe that a person would be responsible for a crime committed with a gun that was stolen from him even though he took reasonable care in storing it. He will not, of course.
Having mentioned some of the areas in which I believe there is misunderstanding of the legislation, I should like to mention some of the provisions of the gun control legislation. Especially dangerous weapons, such as machine guns, will continue to be prohibited. Other guns, such as sawed off shotguns and cheap handguns like the "Saturday Nite Special" will be prohibited as well. The government, by order in council, may add to this list of prohibited weapons, but it cannot add guns of a sporting or hunting nature. That would have to be done by parliament. Handguns will continue to be licensed, as they are now, as restricted weapons, but they will be licensed on a needs basis, and the need for these guns will be for protection of life, for use in a legitimate business, for target practice, or as collectors' items.
Long guns will not be licensed, but gun owners will. People 18 years of age and over will be licensed for a five year period under the proposals of the bill. Special licensing of younger people between the ages of 14 and 18 will be required for hunting, for target practice, of for training in the use of firearms, provided that the parents or guardians are in agreement. There is also a special provision for younger than 18-year-old hunters who live in areas in Canada where hunting is a necessity for food.
Owners of guns will be required to take reasonable care in storage of guns. Too many tragic accidents occur every year as a result of careless use and storage.
Police will be given authority to seize a weapon if they consider that the gun constitutes an imminent danger to the safety of a person. For instance, if a police officer is called to a domestic squabble and there is a gun involved, this provision could be used, and it would be more practical than the present law which requires a police officer to have a warrant.
April 8, 1976

Possession of guns used in the commission of an indictable crime will constitute an offence, carrying a penalty of from one to 14 years. This could have a significant deterrent effect on the hardened criminal. The argument is often made that a professional criminal can always steal a gun so what is the value of the licence? That may be true, but at present a person who is released from prison can go to a store and purchase a gun without any inhibitions whatsoever, and then go out and commit a crime. It seems to me that this provision would have a deterrent effect.
When we look at the number of murders committed in the United States as compared to Canada we see that in the United States some 75 per cent of murders committed with a gun are committed with a handgun, whereas in Canada, where possession of handguns has been restricted for many years, only 25 per cent are committed with handguns. So it seems to me that this is some indication that this provision would have some deterrent effect even on the professional criminal.
Likewise it seems to me that in the impulse crime where a person has a fight with his next door neighbour, flies into a rage and rushes down to a store to buy a gun and then commit a crime, such a licensing provision would require time, provide a cooling off period, and would have a deterrent effect.
Likewise a person who has a problem with alcohol or drugs or who is mentally unstable, or a person who has suicidal tendencies, could be screened out by a licensing procedure and be deterred from an incident involving a gun.
Similarly it seems to me that the provisions in this bill would be quite beneficial in the case of careless handling and storage of guns and other weapons. We often hear of children having guns and either hurting themselves or injuring others. This legislation draws attention to the careless storage and handling of guns and not taking proper precautions to preserve the safety of others. The present Criminal Code provides for the use of guns, but this bill adds the provision with regard to storage and with regard to taking proper precautions against injury to others.
There are a number of areas which members of the committee, when they start the study of this legislation, should look at in detail. Perhaps they can strengthen the legislation and make it more practical. One of these areas is the careless storage and handling of guns. A great deal of concern has been expressed about this. I should like to see the committee do a detailed study on this. Certainly proper and reasonable care of guns and storage of guns in a bush camp in northern Ontario will be different from proper storage and handling of guns in downtown Toronto. I hope that the committee will review that provision to make sure that it is practical and workable.
It seems to me that proposed section 106.8(l)(g)(ii) relating to agreements with the provinces could be studied in detail in the committee. This provides for agreements with the provinces under the regulations for the licensing, and implementation of this act. It seems to me that there should be maximum co-ordination with the provinces in that regard.
Measures Against Crime
Many provinces already have hunting licences which require a competency test. Although I am not aware of the details in every province, some provinces may have a fitness test as well, so it seems to me that this provision is very important because in many northern areas where a great deal of hunting is done practically all the gun owners are either hunters or sportsmen. By co-ordinating with the provinces we would be cutting down on bureaucracy, red tape, and duplication of efforts, and likely reducing the cost of the administration of this proposed legislation.
Likewise it seems to me that the committee will want to consider the possibility when phasing in this kind of legislation how it could be co-ordinated with the present hunting licence provisions, especially in northern and remote areas of our country where nearly all guns are used for hunting purposes and where the number of crimes related to gun incidents is minimal.
The third matter at which I should like to see the committee take a close look is the purchase of ammunition in northern and remote areas. We should think of the situation which would occur in northern Ontario and in many areas of the west where the housewife would have to drive 40 or 50 miles to town to buy provisions for her family, and she would not be able to pick up a box of .22 shells which her husband would need to kill vermin or groundhogs. It seems to me that we must look closer at that provision to make sure it is practical and workable, and that we are not just writing a bill which is suitable for downtown Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver.
Those are some of the main matters on which I should like to see the committee go into more detail as it studies this legislation. When this legislation is before the committee, the committee will want to have representatives of fish and game groups and of hunting clubs come before it to outline the practical difficulties in implementing a program like this. We are all aware that difficulties will occur and that no draftsman can ever prepare a bill which is completely perfect, and surely we want to have the deliberations and suggestions which have been made in this House reflected in the work of the standing committee.
Having said all that, I believe we should move on to see this legislation dealt with by the committee. I hope the committee can review it and make improvements, where it is possible, so that we can have a workable and practical piece of legislation which at the same time will improve public safety in Canada.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate resumes tomorrow I should like to share some of my philosophical thoughts on this subject with hon. members. In the few moments remaining tonight I should like to start-and it will be finished tomorrow- an adventurous phantasy into what would happen if this bill becomes law. I set it in the Halifax area, the front line trench in two world wars, and I think about an occasion- after Royal Assent might be given to the bill in its present form-in which a task force from the enemy lands in Halifax. These people are armed with one of the deadliest weapons which can be used by one part of mankind against another. What is that deadly weapon? It is the Criminal Code of Canada as revised by Bill C-83.

April 8, 1976
Measures Against Crime
The first armed Canadian meets the foreign invader. He tells him to stand and surrender. The foreign invader replies, "My good man, you cannot carry a loaded rifle." The Canadian soldier, who was not born yesterday, says, "By George, I can," and he points to clause 89 of the present Bill C-83 as set forth at page 7, which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, (a) a member of the Canadian Forces or of the armed forces of a state other than Canada that are lawfully present in Canada ... is not guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only that he has in his possession a weapon for the purpose of his duties or employment.
"So there," says our Canadian soldier," I do have a right to carry this rifle." "Not so" says the invader, "have you checked clause 88 of the legislation?" Section 88 says:
Every one who, not being the holder of a licence under which he may lawfully have in his possession firearms or ammunition, knowingly has in his possession any firearm or ammunition ...
"That," says the foreign invader, "is where you are caught, my Canadian friend." Indeed the Canadian soldier is caught. Under the bill he is certainly entitled to carry his rifle, but under the bill he is not entitled to carry any ammunition in it." And for that offence," says the foreign invader, "there will be two years to be served in one of Her Majesty's prisons."
That is only the first of at least four horrendous episodes which could happen to our brave Canadian soldier fighting on the beaches of Halifax against a foreign invader armed with a revised Criminal Code of Canada, and I will tell the rest of that story when the debate resumes tomorrow.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I will just be a moment. I wish to ask the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader if he would be kind enough to consult with his colleagues in the other place to see if they can rectify what I can only assume was a bad error in the drafting and passing of Bill C-92, an act to provide for compensation for former prisoners of war, in that it omits any mention of prisoners of war from World War I. There are still quite a number of these people around. They could be as young as 74 or 73. Surely it must be an omission or error that they were not included in Bill C-92, and I ask the parliamentary secretary to consult with his friends in the other place to see if this can still be rectified.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I will even talk to a couple of the hon. members' friends as well.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, April 2, as reported in Hansard at page 12407, I put the following question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde):
In view of the studies which have been made by the Canadian Council on Social Development with regard to public sector pensions and in view of the call which came recently from the Canada Pension Conference for an inquiry into what is happening in the private sector with regard to pensions, will the minister consider undertaking a thorough review or establishing a public inquiry into pension policy, both public and private, so that we can be sure that things will go well down the road?
If I may paraphrase the minister's reply, it was to the effect that high level studies are being conducted in his department and in the Department of Finance, and that therefore at that moment the minister did not feel that he needed to give me an affirmative answer to my question, but I am happy to say that he left the door open.
My question is obviously one that looks to the future, but it could be a future that is closer than we realize. Before I expand on my question let me just say in a sentence or two that I am sure the minister still knows I am deeply concerned about some immediate improvements that I believe ought to be made in pension policy. In particular, I think that now is the time for an increase in the basic amount of old age security. I also think, even though this is still the session in which the bill was passed providing for spouses' allowances, that the time has come when widows and spinsters, and widowers and bachelors, should be permitted to qualify for the benefit that is now available to spouses between 60 and 65 who have older partners drawing old age security. Discrimination against persons of single status should be ended. The minister knows that, but I do not want him to forget it.
Nevertheless I think it important that we consider the implications of my question of last Friday. The study that I had in mind by the Canadian Council on Social Development is the one entitled: "How Much Choice? Retirement Policies in Canada", published in November, 1975, which was followed up recently by a statement on retirement policies issued by the Canadian Council on Social Development itself.
This study looks very closely at public pension policy and goes into the question of whether in the future we should continue to have only a portion of our pension policy in the public sector, leaving a large element in the private sector, or whether there should be an increasing involvement of the public sector in pension policy.
The Canadian Pension Conference to which I also referred has gone into this matter and expressed some concern, almost alarm, about the future of private pension plans, and this raises the whole question fo whether there should not be an expansion of what is being done in the public sector.
May I digress for a moment to say that studies and papers are being written and produced in the United States with regard to the situation down there which are even more alarming than the statements made in this country.

April 8, 1976

And rightly so, Mr. Speaker, because I think that our public sector pension plans in Canada are much more soundly based. We started early on a universal scheme which is nation-wide, and I think we are in a better position for the future.
Then we hear other voices, such as some of the provinces that like to be able to borrow money out of the Canada Pension Plan fund at a low rate of interest, making statements about the fact that not very far down the road the rates that Canadians will have to pay under the Canada Pension Plan will have to be increased not just to protect their pension position but to provide low borrowing rates for the provinces.
Then we hear voices of other groups that just do not like universal pensions, universal family allowances, groups that are still saying that these things should be done away with and that payments should be made only in cases of need.
I submit that all of these matters call for the kinds of studies that are taking place in the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Finance, but time creeps up on us very fast and we could be in trouble. Some of these plans could fail to achieve all the things that we hoped they would achieve. Instead of waiting until there is a crisis, I think an over-all study by a public inquiry or a commission is something that the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), should establish, and would bring credit upon themselves for doing so.
The minister knows that I think we have to move more in the direction of the, Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan providing almost entirely for the retirement years of our people. I think the Canada Pension Plan has to be enlarged. It has to take over a good deal of what the private sector is now doing. However, that is part of what should be studied, so I leave it at that.
I confess that I have included in what I have said tonight some of my own ideas as to what ought to be done now. I think my proposals should be implemented. However, the main burden of my making these remarks tonight and the reason I am particularly glad the minister is here, and I appreciate his staying for the late show, is that I seriously think that the idea of an over-all study of pension policy is overdue. I hope that tonight the minister will open the door even a little wider to such a study.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my answer on April 2, the issue of a review of public and private pension policy is currently under study by the government.
Officials from my department, along with officials of the Department of Finance and the department of insurance, are currently preparing a situation report on pension policy for cabinet. This report will review all available information on current pension policy and programs. The review by the officials will take into account such issues as those raised in studies prepared by the Canadian Council on Social Development and others. On receipt of that report my colleagues and I will consider what steps should be taken to assist in the future development of policies dealing with retirement issues.
Adjournment Debate
No decision has been taken one way or another with regard to implementing a more ambitious study, either within government or public inquiry or review. I am not ruling out such possibilities, but such a decision would only be made following an examination of the report prepared by our officials.
The hon. member stressed tonight some urgency on the issue. I submit to him that before embarking on a broad ranging royal commission type of study which we might not need, there would be some merit in assessing whether we can arrive at conclusions much faster and by a less elaborate way. I need only refer the hon. member to the experience with the Carter Commission. From the time the commission started until the legislation was finally implemented, a span of almost ten years had elapsed. Also, the final project was much different from what came out of the commission. The hon. member has been in the House much longer than I. He knows as well as I do that royal commissions are not exactly the panacea given this type of situation or problem.
The desire is to put into effect improvements in the area of pensions in Canada. Several have resulted from the social security review. I have no doubt that there are still several important issues to be dealt with and I hope this can be done rather speedily.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


AIR TRANSPORT-THREATENED STRIKE OF SAFETY OPERATIONS GROUP-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO ASSURE CONTINUED OPERATIONS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak on the air safety inspector walkout. I find it strange that neither the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) nor his parliamentary secretary are here. I can only assume that there is some secretary here who has nothing to do with this subject at all.
I will have to put on the record two questions to the Minister of Transport. First, in view of the fact that Transport Canada's involvement and authority in air carrier inspection arose out of recommendations contained in Justice Gibson's report of January 29, 1971, into the DC-8 crash of July 5, 1970, at Toronto, why, contrary to these recommendations, has Transport Canada surrendered this authority to the very airline that was subject of this inquiry in the first place, Air Canada?
Second, if at the time this authority was surrendered to Air Canada the minister was unaware that this policy of having Transport Canada Civil Aviation inspectors supervise airline inspection arose out of recommendations contained in Justice Gibson's report, can he assure this House that the authority granted Air Canada on April 2, 1976, will be revoked?
A message from Transport Canada dated April 2, 1976, stated that they were proposing the appointment of chief flying instructors as air carrier designated examiners. It further stated it has been decided to institute a trial program for a period of up to 12 months. This is definitely a move to replace safety inspectors who are on strike. These Air Canada appointments are an obvious attempt at strike breaking by the Liberal government, especially by the

April 8, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Minister of Transport and by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) who are placing strike-breaking before air safety. A similar notice has been sent to CP Airlines granting some of their pilots the right to become inspectors for a 12-month period.
I should like to quote from the autumn, 1973, issue of the magazine "Pilot". We find there a statement by Mr. Walter McLeish on the role of the Air Canada inspector. Mr. McLeish is the Director General of Civil Aviation, Ministry of Transport. In his statement he said:
It should be obvious that in the public interest and in order to verify the minister's certification, inspections of every operating certificate holder must be conducted on a continuing and orderly basis to ensure that the holder continues to be "adequately equipped and able to conduct a safe operation".
He went on to say:
After the Air Canada's DC-8 accident in Toronto in July, 1970, and as a direct result of specific recommendations made in Judge Gibson's report, authority was received to expand air carrier inspection activities ...
Further on Mr. McLeish said:
To assess the effectiveness and standard of the initial training program he (the air carrier inspector) will observe parts of the program and then conduct the initial type proficiency checks or the upgrading checks... he will conduct the proficiency checks on the designated company check pilots.
Who is going to check the check pilots when their licences run out if the safety inspectors are on strike? This question must be answered in the interest of the safety of the travelling public and of air crews.
In Mr. Justice Gibson's report dated July 5, 1970, the following statement appears:
Most check pilots are reluctant to report a competent line pilot in such a manner as to incriminate him and, I suspect, some check pilots were in favour of the above so-called malpractice in that it reduced the number of bad landings.
This is a retrogressive move going back to all inspections being made by check pilots.
Further on appears this statement:
As the evidence indicated that some Air Canada check pilots did not insist that certain Air Canada pilots adhere strictly to the operating procedures described in Air Canada's DC-8 operating manual (it is recommended) that Air Canada take whatever steps are necessary to make certain that all its check pilots require that all pilots adhere strictly to the operating procedures laid down for this type of aircraft as prescribed in the said manual.
This practice must be stopped and the Minister of Transport must become personnally involved in this labour dispute in the best interests of air safety.
I go on now to quote from the rules and regulations of the Ministry of Transport with regard to air safety inspection, reading from section 8 which has to do with indoctrination and training. There we find the following:
a)	Indoctrination ana training for all examiners will normally be supervised by an MOT inspector holding corresponding licence and rates appropriate to the particular examiner designation.
b)	Responsible inspectors will instruct, observe, test and evaluate to the extent necessary to ensure prospective examiners possess:
(1)	Satisfactory knowledge of their responsibilities with respect to
the authority granted to them by the MOT.
(2)	Sufficient knowledge, ability and skill required to conduct a
particular test.
You can see that this has all been placed aside with the appointing of those Air Canada check pilots while the safety instructors are out on strike.
The document continues:
(3)	Satisfactory knowledge of MOT's evaluation, grading standards, formats and reports associated with the particular examiner
function.
(c)	In determining the above, inspectors will observe the prospective examiner's conduct, evaluate grade and critique at least one complete pilot proficiency check appropriate to the licence involved. If prospective examiners do not satisfy all requirements they will not be approved.
(d)	Responsible inspectors will impress upon prospective examiners they will be representing and responsible to the MOT. Prospective examiners must understand that many company pilots, economics-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) I should like to respond to the hon. gentleman's question. The hon. member's statement that 11 Air Canada pilots have expired licences may be quite correct. However, I am informed that this is a fluid situation which may vary from day to day due to the fact there is only one official in most regions available to process licensing documentation. Certain limited measures to relieve the licensing situation, without prejudice to safety, have been introduced. However, the period during which they may continue to be implemented diminishes with each passing day and the situation will deteriorate progressively, and eventually operations may have to be curtailed unless the strike is settled.
In view of the foregoing, therefore, it is the minister's intention to keep himself informed as to the general situation and await developments while continuing to ensure, through all means at his disposal, the provision of safe air transportation for the flying public.


FLOODS-DATE OF COMPLETION OF STUDY OF MEASURES TO PREVENT FLOODING IN MONTREAL AREA
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue in greater depth tonight a question I asked yesterday of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand) involving a study of flooding, with particular reference to those riverside areas of the constituency of Vaudreuil that suffered such extensive damage in the floods of 1974 and again this year, 1976.
I note from the records that in the Montreal area damage costs in 1971 exceeded $2 million, whilst protection costs were some $290,000. In 1972 damage costs exceeded $6 million, whilst protection costs were some $260,000.
In a general news release dated October 3, 1974, it was stated that "Environment Canada minister Jeanne Sauve and the Minister of Natural Resources for Quebec Gilles Masse . .. announced the beginning of an intensive two-year study of methods to alleviate flooding in the Montreal area. The joint study was to involve the federal Depart-

April 8, 1976

ment of Public Works and Transport, Quebec's Environmental Protection Service and Hydro-Quebec."
The study was to concentrate mainly on the area around Lake St. Louis, the St. Lawrence downstream to Ver-cheres, Lake of Two Mountains, and the two rivers, des Prairies and des Milles lies.
Montreal and its heavily developed suburbs, situated at the confluence of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence, are particularly vulnerable to flood damage. Flooding occurs whenever the combined discharge of the two rivers exceeds the natural capacity of channels around the Island of Montreal. The flood hazard is compounded when the water level in the Great Lakes and Ottawa drainage basins is abnormally high, as it has been in recent years.
Several alternatives to be examined by the study board are changes in regulation of the Ottawa River, structural changes in the channels around Montreal, and a program of dyking and land-zoning for flood prone areas.
The following day, October 4, 1974, in a news release, Environment Canada Minister Jeanne Sauve invited a new federal approach to reduce the mounting toll of damages caused by floods. She said, "Canada has to reduce the toll of personal suffering and financial loss due to floods."
Experience has shown that a flood damage reduction policy based on structural work alone may not be effective. Alternatives to be considered include land use adjustments such as acquisition and zoning, flood warning and forecasting, flood routing through property easements, flood-proofing of structures, up-stream storage, stream straightening, flood by-passing, and dykes.
A resolution passed by the town of Pierrefonds on October 21, 1974, reads in part:

WHEREAS the Hon. Jeanne Sauve, Minister of Environment, and the hon. Gilles Masse have recently issued a joint press release authorizing a new study of the means to control floodings in the Montreal area;
WHEREAS the committee is not required to submit its report before 1976;
It is resolved that our elected representatives be asked to raise questions in the House of Commons and in the National Assembly to determine what procedures will be taken to restrict floodings during that study and to compensate for the hardships and damages endured by our citizens during that time.

To the question I asked in December, 1974, which reads: [Translation]
To this date, what is the total estimated amount of the claims for compensation under the Federal Aid Program for last spring's flood in the Province of Quebec?

-the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Chretien) answered:

.. . the province has provided no official estimate of the expenditures it expects to make for this purpose.
Adjournment Debate

To the second part of the question, which was: [Translation]
Are discussions with the provincial government under way or being arranged to provide for an equivalent amount of money to prevent further floods?
And the answer was:
No discussions have been held with the provincial government to provide any money to prevent further flooding, nor are any such discussions scheduled.

Mr. Speaker, my three questions are: First, the question posed by the town of Pierrefonds which reads:

What procedures will be taken to restrict floodings during that study and to compensate for the hardships and damages endured by our citizens during that time.

Second, has the study been as exhaustive as it was stated it would be in 1974, including consideration of acquisition as well as stream straightening?
Third, will federal funds contributed in 1974 and 1976 be cumulative for purposes of ascertaining the extent of the federal contribution to preventive works recommended by the report?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for his persistence in this matter. I am sure he should rightfully accept some of the credit when this thing is eventually worked out.
Finding the best way of reducing human suffering and damages due to floods in the Montreal area is a very complex matter, as the hon. member stated. The floods are due to one or a combination of three main factors, high flows from Lake Ontario down the St. Lawrence River, high flows in the Ottawa River, and floods from local rivers. To complicate matters further, water levels may be seriously affected by ice jams along the various waterways. It is not then surprising that it has taken several years for the Canada-Quebec technical committee started in May, 1974, to produce a report which will advise us on the most effective and cheapest ways of solving the problem.
In the provisional report, which I have here, which the minister received yesterday and which I received today, the technical people report on studies to change the way the power dams in the Ottawa system are operated to provide a greater measure of flood control without sacrificing hydro-electric power. They report on possibilities of storing more water upstream on the Ottawa for flood control.
They are examining the costs and possibilities of dyking or dredging or removing buildings from the flood plain in the immediate Montreal area. As you can imagine, the weighing of the costs and benefits of these various alternative means of reducing damages is not a simple job. We want the solution to be effective and to cost the least money possible for the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec. The minister hopes to meet with the Hon. J. Cournoyer, the responsible minister in Quebec, in the near future to
12656

April 8, 1976
Adjournment Debate
review the provisional report and to see what immediate steps might be taken.
The final technical report and recommendations are, however, not due until June 30, and it may be difficult to
make sound judgments on the best lasting solutions to the problem until all the facts are reported.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Friday, April 9, 1976