1976-03-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development undertake a complete investigation of the flood conditions in the Rideau River with particular emphasis on:
(a)	precautionary measures that were taken by his department and the machinery for interjurisdictional co-operation;
(b)	any improvement thereon that might be made in such procedure; and particularly any immediate action that can be taken;
(c)	the question of compensation for damage suffered by property owners and recommendations for action by the government alone or in concert with other governments.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions 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 fact that as an austerity measure the government has dropped a program which would have saved millions of dollars by eliminating the government's dependence on private employment agencies to provide casual labour in the government; in view of the fact that as many as 2,000 people a day are hired through these agencies to provide casual labour for the government; and in view of the fact that these people are viciously exploited by these private companies to the extent of 20 or 30 per cent of their salaries being paid to
these companies who do no more work than accepting and making a phone call, this labour arrangement looking more like feudalism and indentured labour than anything else, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That to protect people from exploitation at the hands of private employment firms and to save the government millions of dollars, the government immediately initiate a policy of hiring casual employees only through Canada Manpower.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The said motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering that the federal government is duty-bound to protect the Canadian textile and garment industry, in particular against low cost imports, and considering that the American policy of import limitations is proving highly successful and deserves our full consideration, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House initiate immediate discussions on the situation of this Canadian industry in the light of the U.S. experience and at the same time strengthen the mandate of the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce so that department officials responsible for the implementation of this policy may be asked to testify and bring forth all necessary clarification on this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion by 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:: There is not unanimous consent, therefore the motion may not be put.
12264

March 30, 1976

Ferry Service ENERGY


EFFECT OF ENERGY COSTS IN THE ATLANTIC REGION ON FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I think all hon. members know the devastating effect that recent large increases in costs of energy have had on the Atlantic provinces. As 90 per cent of the energy used in that part of Canada is derived from petroleum and as energy costs in the Atlantic provinces are two or three times greater than energy costs in Ontario and Quebec, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion report to this House forthwith on the negative impact on federal programs of regional development which present and increasing energy costs have; and, further, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicate at that time what interim programs and assistance are being provided so as to ensure the effectiveness of present federal development policies and programs.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the proposal by Canada to purchase from Lockheed Aircraft Corporation 18 anti-submarine planes at a cost of $1.1 billion is under a cloud, I move, seconded by the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That civil servants should be "quarantined" for at least three years after retirement from dealing directly or indirectly with government on any subjects for which they once were responsible, especially in view of the fact that top retired Canadian civil servants have the most generous pension scheme of any people in the nation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion can only be


Some hon. Members:: No. presented, pursuant to Standing Order 43, with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?	*


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

O)



TRANSPORT


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter relating to ferry services between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, and the urgent and pressing necessity of relieving the congestion and delays which hinder commercial and tourist traffic between these two provinces each summer. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That the Ministry of Transport implement the recommendations of the P.E.I.-mainland ferry transportation study steering committee which recommended weeks ago that: "A group should begin work to remove the ferry M.V. Confederation from Borden to Wood Island in time to carry traffic this summer": and further, that the Minister of Transport instruct those officials in the marine and ferry division of his department to proceed with all haste so that the operator of the service between Wood Island, P.E.I. and Caribou, N.S., may finalize plans for the hiring of a crew and the refitting of the ferry Confederation without any further delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



THE PERFORMING ARTS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of great importance to Canada. For many years we have recognized that great reservoir of talent in Canada for production in the film industry. Yesterday, for the first time in the history of the Academy Awards, a Canadian feature length documentary film produced by Budge Crawley of Crawley Films in Ottawa was not only nominated but went on to win an Academy Award. In view of the great encouragement this is to all other Canadian film producers and directors, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House send its warm congratulations to Mr. Crawley for his landmark achievement which has so greatly enhanced Canada's reputation in the creative arts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House having heard the motion, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion, moved by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), seconded by the member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 30, 1976



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the minister indicated that during the initial contract negotiations the government had been told by Lockheed "that they could arrange the financing". Is the minister saying that Lockheed, which already owes $595 million, did hot tell the government that it could not incur any new debt or even be a technical borrower without permission of the United States Emergency Loan Guarantee Board?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Lockheed Corporation on earlier occasions, and again at the last of the negotiations, indicated they had these types of problems. They also indicated they could solve them and that they could, in fact, provide the financing for which we were asking. We were under no doubt about that, that they could provide the financing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Could the Minister of National Defence tell the House precisely what information he had from Lockheed at that time as to guarantees they would be in a position the minister apparently believed they would be in? Can he give us precise information as to the guarantees he received concerning the time frame within which they would be in the position in which the minister apparently presumed they would be in?


James Armstrong Richardson: At that time we were negotiating with two companies, the Boeing Company and the Lockheed Company. They both indicated very clearly to officials of the Department of National Defence and, in particular, to General Allan who was in charge of the project office that they could provide the interim financing or the bridge financing to complete the difference between the funds which were available in my department and the payments set out in the payments schedule. That word was brought to us by General Allan following his conversations and we assumed it was accurate. It subsequently became apparent that the Lockheed Company was not able to provide this financing.


LOBBYISTS
Charles Joseph Clark: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Minister of National Defence could not answer any questions as to the date on which Lockheed retained the firm of Reisman and Grandy Limited or the terms and conditions which was precisely my reason for raising the matter of the registration of lobbyists on Friday. In the light of the Prime Minister's indication that this matter may be brought into consideration during the course of the
Oral Questions
study on guidelines for retired public servants-I am referring to the registration of lobbyists-would the Prime Minister review and then table the study on the registration of lobbyists which was carried out for the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, now Minister of Justice, and would the right hon. gentleman tell the House why no action was taken in connection with that study at the time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I would have to refresh my mind with regard to that study; I do not, honestly, recall its conclusions and I therefore cannot say why it was not, to use the hon. gentleman's phrase, acted upon. I would point out to him, in connection with this matter of the registration of lobbyists, by way of confirming my questioning the other day the efficacy of such a course, that Messrs. Reisman and Grandy claim they are not lobbyists and that in fact they are not lobbying the government for anything.


Charles Joseph Clark: However the Prime Minister tries to define it, we obviously face a problem here arising from that situation. Would the right hon. gentleman give immediate consideration to the registration of those firms and individuals which make money by making representations to the government or to its agencies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The suggestion is far too vague to have any validity at all. I am sure every member of the House, including those on the government side, find that representations are made to them practically every day of the week. They may come from so-called lobbyists; they may come from lawyers who are passing through town, they may come from economists, they may come from university professors. A lot of representations have been made to me in the last little while by members of the Canadian Medical Association. So, surely, the Leader of the Opposition does not think it is that simple-just to ask everybody who wants to talk to the government to give their names.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday, outside the House, the minister confirmed that the government, and I quote, "spent three years selecting this particular aircraft". Would the minister tell the House what role the former deputy minister of industry, trade and commerce, Mr. Grandy, played in those deliberations?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Grandy was the deputy minister of industry, trade and commerce during part of that period. I cannot say which committees he sat on. I presume he must have had some contact with the discussions which were taking place. That is to be expected in view of his position. But I have no details of his work schedule during that period.
21804-15'/2

March 30, 1976
Oral Questions


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-VIEW OF PRIME MINISTER ON NEGOTIATING CONTRACT WHEN SUFFICIENT FUNDS NOT AVAILABLE TO ENSURE PRODUCTION
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the right hon. Prime Minister. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would comment on the fact that his Minister of National Defence was apparently authorized to announce the purchase of the Lockheed LRPA when he did not have sufficient money; further, that his Minister of Supply and Services negotiated a contract apparently without knowing that the Department of National Defence were unable to provide the necessary financing; and further, that the deputy project manager from supply and services prepared a contract calling for the Department of National Defence to provide the money although he surely must have known that they did not have any? Would the Prime Minister now indicate what steps he is taking to ensure that this utter shambles will not occur again?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is, of course, a rhetorical question which is based on a misunderstanding, a serious one, of the facts.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF FACT COMPANY COULD NOT FINANCE CONTRACT WITHOUT APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES EMERGENCY LOAN BOARD
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Considering that any Canadian who is going to buy something makes sure, first, that the company can provide it and, secondly, finds out in advance what the terms of payment are going to be, can the minister assure the House that he was aware last November that the provisions of the 1971 United States emergency loan guarantee act were on public file with the U.S. securities and exchange commission, and that these provisions, according to the secretary of the emergency loan guarantee board, Alan Vinick, make it very clear that Lockheed was not in a position to consider financing a contract such as the LRPA without the permission of the board and the 24 creditors?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that my officials were aware of that last November and I have seen evidence to that effect in writing. But they were also told, as I have said on a number of occasions, that those restraints could in fact be overcome and that Lockheed could provide the financing.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister mind expanding on that last statement. If he is about to commit the people of Canada to spending millions of dollars, indeed billions of dollars, did he not take steps to find out just how Lockheed was going to be able to get around what seems to be a clear requirement in terms of U.S. law and regulations?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that at that particular stage in the negotiations we had to accept the word not only of the Lockheed company but the Boeing company, both of whom said they could finance these

interim payments. We then made our decision and entered into detailed negotiations. It was in the final negotiations that it became apparent that what Lockheed had told us they could do they were unable to do.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASON FOR CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOUT FINANCING
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that the vice-president of marketing for Lockheed, Mr. William Wilson, specifically denies what the minister has just said, and that he has said that the Lockheed corporation all along left no impression with the government of Canada that it could provide the financing that the minister says was the government's understanding? If so, how does he give any account for this flat contradiction between what he is telling the House and what a senior official of that corporation is saying? In answering that, to what did he refer in past answers in the House about a month ago when he said that there was some confusion between the government's understanding of the financial arrangements and Lockheed?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as recently as this morning, and on numerous earlier occasions, I talked with the officials who were negotiating with Lockheed and they were very clearly of the belief that Lockheed could provide this financing. They were so told and they so reported to us, and it was on that basis that we continued-


An hon. Member:: By Lockheed?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, by Lockheed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I shall put my question to his parliamentary secretary.
As the minister is soon to announce the dairy policy of the government for the year 1976-77, may I ask him if the minister has had talks with the management committee since yesterday's meeting with the industrial milk producers? If so, can he tell us whether some consensus has been arrived at that is acceptable to the producers with regard to the provincial quotas?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the minister met the committee in question this morning. He is now holding discussions with them and I can say absolutely nothing at this time about what proposals may have been made by the provinces.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a
supplementary.
March 30, 1976

May I ask the parliamentary secretary whether sometime today, after the talks have come to an end, a statement could be made in the House, if it is indicated, to inform hon. members about the conclusions arrived at by the members of the management committee, the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Minister of Agriculture?


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot guarantee the hon. member that this can be done today but one thing is sure: the minister is supposed to announce his policy within the next two days. According to the law, it must be done each year before April 1.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will he confirm that Mr. Reisman of Reisman and Grandy was elected to the board of directors of the Canada Development Corporation as a voting director on April 1, 1975, and prior to that was a non-voting member as the deputy minister of finance? He is still a director of Telsat, which dates back to December of 1970. Does the right hon. gentleman feel there is a conflict of interest in this appointment in view of the present commercial activities of Mr. Reisman?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Finance could confirm the exact dates, but I do know the first part of the facts to be as stated, that Mr. Reisman is a member of these two boards and that he was retained on these boards after he had ceased being a member ex officio by virtue of his position as deputy minister. As to the conflict of interest aspect of it, Mr. Speaker, I told the House the other day we were going to look into these matters. As stated, I am somewhat worried about the activities of upper level civil servants in the years after they leave the service. I do not see a conflict of interest just on basis of the fact that a man, now in private life, is seconded by these corporations to sit on their boards.


ALLEGED CONFLICT IN MR. GRANDY'S POSITION AS DIRECTOR OF DE HAVILLAND WHILE ADVISING LOCKHEED
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister see a conflict of interest in the appointment, until September 19, 1975, of Mr. James Grandy of Reisman and Grandy as a member of the executive committee and director of de Havilland-I understand he is in no longer in that position-while at the same time his firm was advising Lockheed Aircraft on the LRPA sale to the Department of National Defence? There seems to be a conflict there.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again I cannot confirm the dates, but it seems to me that the question is in reference to Mr. Grandy's position in advising two non-governmental corporations, and I
Oral Questions
do not see how that would be in conflict with the government. It is advice that those corporations are asking him to give them. There may be a conflict between the two corporations; there is none with the government beyond, once again, the serious question I raised about activities of deputy ministers after they leave the public service.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer given by the Prime Minister to the previous question would he consider tabling all documents involving Messrs. Reisman and Grandy and the federal government and whatever additional correspondence or documentation there is which might spell out in detail the terms of reference of these contracts? Is he now in a position to provide the House with this material or has he investigated? If not, will he do so and make a statement with respect to the matter and table the necessary documents?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I intended at three o'clock under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) to table in both official languages copies of the contracts with their former departments, contracts between Mr. Grandy and Mr. Reisman. If the House would give permission to do it now that would save the time of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Prime Minister have the consent of the House to table the documents forthwith?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


REASON FOR MINISTER'S STATEMENTS ON HIGH ENERGY COSTS IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Resources who will recall that on Friday last the Minister of Finance indicated the response to requests from the government of Nova Scotia on the question of power costs resulting from higher oil prices, would be on the agenda this week. In view of this why does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources feel it necessary to take a rather negative attitude toward any such requests in public? Does he feel that the government of that area has failed to take advantage of all previous suggestions made by the government of Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I was asked some questions yes-

March 30, 1976
Oral Questions
terday by members of the press referring to the serious situation in the Atlantic provinces. I answered them to the best of my ability and I think I gave a fairly accurate assessment of the situation. I think it is important that hon. members opposite recognize that the federal government has taken a very large number of steps already to assist consumers in the Atlantic region.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fairweather:: Let them freeze in the dark.


Alastair William Gillespie: While recognizing the difficulties of consumers in the Atlantic provinces, let us not forget there are consumers all across Canada-


An hon. Member:: Thanks!


Alastair William Gillespie: -who are having to face increasing energy costs. This government made it very clear in 1973 that the days of cheap energy were over.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Play it again Sam!


An hon. Member:: No, but it is a cheap government.


Alastair William Gillespie: We also took a number of steps at that time to cushion Canadians against the new oil prices.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to indicate to the minister that he may not be fighting so much with members on this side of the House as with the governments of those provinces. I should like to ask whether he has taken this attitude toward what is obviously a very severe problem for Nova Scotians and the islanders whose case is not like that of consumers in other parts of the country because of their heavy dependence on oil? Does the minister base his attitude in part on the feeling that the governments of those provinces have not been responsible in taking precautionary measures to the problems facing the people now?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I was alluding to the fact that there are many consumers of natural gas in other parts of the country who have found that natural gas prices increased at about the same rate and the same standard as electric rates in the maritime provinces. I think this is sometimes overlooked. The other point is the federal government placed a number of proposals before the provinces in Atlantic Canada and some of those are still on the table.


CONSULTATIONS WITH NEWFOUNDLAND ON DEVELOPMENT OF GULL ISLAND SITE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the same minister. In view of the fact that the development of the Gull Island site in Lower Churchill could provide the power that is needed throughout the maritimes and parts of the United States, could the minister inform the House what progress the government has made with regard to consul-
tations with the province of Newfoundland on the question of development of that site?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there has been a good deal of consultation. I met with ministers from the province of Newfoundland. There are several problems involved, one having to do with the retention and proposed buy-back of some of the power, which has been generated in Newfoundland, from the province of Quebec. Recently there have been meetings between Newfoundland and Quebec ministers. The federal government told the Newfoundland government that our offer of $343 million is on the table for them to develop an interconnection between the Churchill Falls site and the province of Newfoundland. We are very hopeful that the province of Newfoundland will be able to work out some arrangement with the province of Quebec and include us in the financing of that interconnection.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and concerns the Lockheed-Orion matter. As I understand normal procedure, before an agreement in principle is announced, the proposed purchase would routinely go before Treasury Board which would examine the financial viability of the purchase. Can the minister advise the House in this particular case whether, before the November 27 announcement of the agreement in principle of the purchase, the Treasury Board made any inquiries into the financial viability of that purchase or into the question of loan restrictions on the Lockheed Corporation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the financial aspects of the program had been submitted to the Treasury Board and to the cabinet before the final decision. The Department of National Defence budget had been established for several years taking into account the payments to be made for the Lockheed project but obviously the problem which occurred since then which we thought to be part of the financing made by Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Limited seems not to have been understood as such by the company.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I presume the answer of the President of the Treasury Board is that no inquiry was made. Under the Emergency Loan Guarantee Board was a certificate of some kind granted by Treasury Board to the effect that the proposal for purchase in principle was correct and that the proposal was financially viable? Was any inquiry whatsoever made of the United States authority by the President of the Treasury Board?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The negotiation of the contract terms is never done by the Treasury Board itself. We set the financ-
March 30, 1976

ing parameters and it rests with the minister concerned to assume responsibility for the contract terms within the prescribed financial parameters.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary directed to the Minister of National Defence. In answer to the hon. member for Victoria, the minister indicated that he could not be specific about the committees that Messrs. Grandy and Reisman sat on. Can the minister be specific about whether either of these gentlemen recommended to cabinet, approval of the purchase of the Lockheed Orion? Was there any recommendation made to cabinet by either of these gentlemen for purchase of the Lockheed Orion?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. The responsibility for that decision rested first of all with the project office, then through my deputy minister to me and from me to cabinet. That was the chain of recommendation.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-AGREEMENT ON FINANCING SHOULD BE WRITTEN RATHER THAN ORAL
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. As someone who had considerable business experience before entering cabinet, would the minister not agree that it is against all accepted business practice to deal with such an important part of a potential contract as financing by word of mouth rather than having it committed to paper and thereby knowing exactly what is being dealt with? Is this not particularly so in view of the fact that there is such a very large amount of money involved and that the financing of this deal is a tremendously important part of it?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it should be apparent to the hon. member that until the contract was signed there was not a piece of paper that was in fact negotiable with the banks. It could not be finalized until after the contract had been completed. But there were very, very full discussions with both of the companies which were competing for the contract at that time, and both of them very clearly indicated that financing was possible. The terms of that, of course, had to be worked out after the contract.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-PROPRIETY OF NEGOTIATING WITH COMPANY WHICH IS UNDER INVESTIGATION
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have one supplementary for the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister think it is proper for the Government of Canada to enter into contract negotiations with a firm whose activities are now under investigation?
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear in earlier answers that following our decision in principle to purchase the Lockheed, that company did run into serious difficulties because of improper payments or accusations of improper payments in other countries, and for that reason we wanted to have assurances from the United States government with regard to the viability of the company. As I indicated to the House before, we intend to have those assurances in writing before proceeding.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services or the President of the Treasury Board, or perhaps the Prime Minister might want to respond because it involves the Public Service of Canada. I wonder if the minister can give some assurances to allay the widespread fears circulating this morning, particularly aroung Ottawa but also in other centres in Canada where there are large concentrations of public service employees, that they will not in fact receive their pay cheques tomorrow.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the House if a mistake was made yesterday. The bank misunderstood the rules of the House: the cheques presented at the Bank of Montreal yesterday were entirely valid. However, the bank does not understand well the procedures of this House and I think that there are a few members who do not understand them either.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am not at all sure that I understood the response of the President of the Treasury Board. It was not at all clear whether the public service will be paid tomorrow. Will the Prime Minister, to whose attention this matter was drawn this morning, indicate to the House and the public servants of Canada that they will in fact be paid tomorrow?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the cheques are dated prior to April 1, the cheques will be honoured; if they are dated after April 1, they would have to wait for the Senate to pass interim supply. I am informed that the Senators will be very diligent and that the bill will be passed tonight.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder if I could then ask the minister if he could indicate how many people are about to fall into the category whose cheques will be dated April Fool's Day, because this is a serious matter and there is widespread concern right across the country.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In so many words, what I wanted to say earlier was that everyone will be paid according to the cheque they receive either today, tomorrow or the day after, because interim supply will be passed by the Senate tonight.

March 30, 1976
12270_______________________________
Oral Questions PUBLICATIONS


SUGGESTION &quot;MACLEAN'S&quot; REDUCING RURAL CIRCULATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State, and although I recognize it will be slightly lengthy, I ask your indulgence. I ask the minister whether he had an opportunity to read the advertisement placed by Maclean's magazine in last Wednesday's Globe and Mail, which reads in part as follows:
... we wanted our small-centre and rural circulation cut, bringing us to a nicely honed, grand total of 675,000. Problem is, those readers are not dropping us quickly like hotcakes. They're dropping us reluctantly, like handshakes.
We've tried, God knows we've tried. We doubled our subscription price. We dramatically changed our editorial appeal, slanting it directly at the city folk. We stopped all minor market circulation efforts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question, would he put it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I was just coming to a conclusion there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I ask the minister whether he has seen the advertisement indicating that Maclean's magazine intends to curtail its editorial content with respect to rural issues and also its rural circulation. If so, may I ask the minister, at the time he was proposing his legislation to put Time and Reader's Digest in Canada out of business, had Maclean's magazine indicated that it intended to cut back on rural editorial and rural circulation?
May I further ask the minister whether the government has any-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope that by now the hon. member has included whatever proposed supplementary he had.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the ad. The purpose of Bill C-58 was not to drive Time and Reader's Digest out of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Smile when you say that.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is the kind of myth hon. members opposite have been trying to perpetuate for a year and a half.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: Given the rather nasty comments made about Maclean's during the past year and a half by hon. members opposite, I am surprised they are concerned about the drop in its readership.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-POSSIBLE BARTER ARRANGEMENT FOR PAYMENT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In an authoritative report done for the United States energy research and development administration it is indicated that South Korea will pay for some of the cost of its new Canadian CANDU nuclear power plant with textiles. I think the minister and I would agree that if such a report is true, it should be denied immediately-I am sorry. If it is true-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It has been pointed out that the government normally denies what is true, but the question is, if it is true, I wonder if the minister would give us an explanation; and if it is not true, I wonder if he would deny it immediately.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, payment will be made in money.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: To be more specific, is there any arrangement, subarrangement or subcontract relating to the CANDU reactor in South Korea whereby it will be paid for directly or indirectly by the importation into Canada or the export to Canada of textiles?


Alastair William Gillespie: No barter arrangements have been negotiated of which I am aware.


HOUSING
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
I have here with me a letter which reads as follows:
In reply to your letter of March 2, we would ask you again to get in touch with us by telephone.
We need some information which cannot be confirmed by letter. Therefore, we hope to hear from you as soon as possible.
This letter was sent by a high official of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, at the Department of Urban Affairs.
My question is this: is the minister aware that certain questions are asked by telephone which are so important that they cannot be put in writing? If so, why do high officials use that procedure?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the letter itself and go into the matter with the hon. member. I do not know the precise circumstances involved, but I would certainly be interested in following through.
March 30, 1976


FEDERAL PREDICTIONS ON OIL PRICES-ALLEGED FAILURE OF NOVA SCOTIA TO ACCEPT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ON POWER GRID
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Today's Halifax Chronicle-Herald in a lead story on escalating power costs in Nova Scotia suggests that the federal government intends to give no special help to the province of Nova Scotia when crude oil prices are raised on July 1. The story says that Energy, Mines and Resources officials warned the premier of Nova Scotia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to interfere again with another hon. member posing a question, but all hon. members are aware that very few have had access to the question period, I think, primarily as a result of rather long preambles to questions in general, and I do not want to try to enforce a regulation against one without making it uniform.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the minister that the story says that the premier of Nova Scotia was notified years ago about the inevitability of rising fuel costs. Does the minister know that the premier of Nova Scotia said that a document entitled "An Energy Policy for Canada" issued in mid-1973 by the minister's predecessor predicted that foreign oil prices would not reach $7 per barrel until the year 2000, and in 1976 would be less than $4 per barrel?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the premier of Nova Scotia made that statement, but he quoted correctly. It goes to show how rapidly and dramatically the oil picture changed in this country.


Andrew Hogan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The same story referred to energy, mines and resources officials as saying that Nova Scotia has not taken up the federal government's offer to help finance an eastern power grid. Does the minister know that in 1971 the Nova Scotia government asked the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for financial assistance on this matter?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular request but I do know that we offered the province the opportunity to participate in a regional nuclear reactor. That offer was not taken up.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT OF LOSS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of reports that Canada has renegotiated the financial terms of the nuclear reactor sale to Argentina and the contract still involves AECL assuming a substantial loss on the sale, will the minister say exactly how much this project will cost the Canadian taxpayer?
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that information now. I suppose we will not know until after the contract has been fully completed. I know that substantial progress was made on renegotiating the terms of that contract.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF ADHERENCE TO SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister said outside the House that he sees no problems in proceeding with the sale to Argentina even after the change of government last week in Argentina, whereas the Prime Minister said in the House that he would want to make sure the new Argentina government will discharge its contractual and treaty obligations, has the minister received assurance in these renegotiations that the military junta will honour the terms of the safeguards agreement?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I see nothing inconsistent between my statement and the statement of the Prime Minister.


George Harris Hees: Alastair, you never see anything inconsistent between what you say and reality.


SUGGESTED STUDY OF EAST BRAINTREE SITE OF RADIOACTIVE DUMP-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF RESULTS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and has to do with the East Braintree radioactive site. As the minister said previously that the site was in a desolate, remote area, whereas it is but 100 feet from a well travelled road, will the minister now undertake to cause a complete study of the site, determine why it was chosen and make the study findings public, so that the people of the area may be assured that their present fears are unfounded?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, action on the matter is being taken.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the site is found to be radioactive, will the minister undertake to transport the radioactive materials to a waste management site, in accordance with the recommendations of AECB officials, who suggest that is the only way to deal with such material?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that every action necessary will be taken to preserve public health and safety.
12272

March 30,1976
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
implementation OF MARIN report recommendations-
IM	POSSIBILITY OF RETROACTIVITY
Mr Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General may I direct my question to the Minister of Justice? Since Judge Rene Marin's commission of inquiry into various aspects of the RCMP was tabled several days ago, can the minister indicate if any policy decision has been made as to when, and by what means, some of these excellent recommendations will be brought into effect? If not, when will such a decision be made?
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Solicitor General would prefer to answer the question at the first opportunity when he returns to the House.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House if some past inadequacies and inequities respecting internal RCMP procedures will be corrected in future and on a retroactive basis, so that some members of the force recently discharged or disciplined may have the benefit of more just and enlightened treatment in the form of hearings into their particular circumstances? I think particularly of officers like Don McCleery and Gilles Brunet.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer the Solicitor General to answer that question specifically.
* *
*


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD ORDER AGAINST ATLANTIC SUGAR REFINERY EMPLOYEES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.


George Harris Hees: Donald!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, my legislative assistant is helping me again.
How can the government justify the fairness and equity of a system whereby the Anti-Inflation Board ordered employees of Atlantic Sugar Refineries of Saint John, New Brunswick, to pay back part of a wage settlement arrived at in September, seven months ago. It is to be rolled back. Does the minister not think that this is retroactivity carried to extremes?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am struck by the elegance of the hon. member's legislative assistant.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Don. I shall say something nice about you, too.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would have to discuss the matter further with the Anti-Inflation Board, to learn their reasons. I remind the hon. member that the concept of 
payment back is included in the legislation. The board obviously exercised careful judgment in this case.


EFFECT OF DECISION IN ATLANTIC SUGAR AND IRVING PAPER CASES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? What action will the government take to offset the obvious impression created among Atlantic province workers after the Irving paper decision and, now, this decision, that Anti-Inflation Board decisions relating to wage agreements in the Atlantic area will maintain, indeed exaggerate, the regional disparity between the economy of the area and the economy of the rest of Canada, and confirm the second-class citizen syndrome of the residents of the area, because that effect is inherent in the board's decisions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that that impression is totally unfounded. I will take the hon. member's question as a suggestion to stress that, in future, when there are opportunities to discuss this program in the Atlantic provinces. I stress that this is a national program, with national application.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Responding to an earlier question I put to the minister about the advisability of enacting legislation designed to restore individual freedoms and rights of workers to members of Canadian unions, the minister said there was no problem. Can the minister indicate today if the government has long-range or immediate plans to curb deteriorating industrial and labour relations in our country which are causing irreparable damage to our competitive position on world and domestic markets.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we embarked on wage and price controls in order to, among other things, correct the very difficulty implied in the hon. member's question. We hope the program will be successful. There is already evidence that it has been successful. In the meantime, we intend to carry on discussions with the labour movement, to ensure their maximum co-operation even though they have withdrawn from some federal bodies. The hon. member may be aware that the President of the CLC left the door open for multilateral discussion at other levels.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the special difficulties created in British Columbia as a result of the railway shutdown, will the minister tell the House if his department is attempting to identify essential services and find a solution which will curb the number of strikes and shutdowns in those services by way
March 30, 1976

of legislation designed to return responsibility to the labour scene?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we hoped to work out an acceptable formula with the labour movement. Progress along those lines was being made with the Canada Labour Relations Council. We shall now have to devise other techniques for achieving those ends.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the distinguished presence in the gallery of the minister of communications for Saskatchewan, the hon. Mr. Shillington.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with the business of the House for today. It is a point I have discussed with the government House leader, the House leaders of the other two parties on this side, and with several other hon. members. I dare to hope there will be agreement to the suggestion I should like to make.
There is a general desire in the House to get on with the second reading of Bill C-92 having to do with former prisoners of war. The government is finding it difficult to provide government time for that bill. However, at five o'clock today the private members' hour is one that has been assigned to me to deal with one of my public bills. I should like to make the offer to surrender that hour, which happens to be set aside for my bill, on the condition that it be used, instead, for government order No. 92, in other words, Bill C-92. Some of us would be quite prepared to deal with the bill entirely in the hour, but I do not make that a condition. I would just like to suggest that we agree to a House order that at five o'clock today we proceed to Bill C-92.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the desire of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre perhaps to make up some of the time we lost a few weeks ago when he moved the adjournment of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Business of the House


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure that was not his purpose and that he had very good intentions in mind. I would like to say, however, that it is the intention of the government, if the bill is not disposed of in that hour, to call it on Thursday.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we in the official opposition attach the highest priority to the welfare of veterans in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: We certainly welcome the generous offer by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to proceed with second reading of Bill C-92. We also give our assurance that we will not delay passage of this bill and will ensure that it will be dealt with within the hour.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, given the great importance of this bill for the veterans, we also agree to have second reading on Thursday. In no way do we want to delay the passing of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not easy, of course, to at this moment draft an order covering both provisions, the giving over of the hour and the consideration of the bill, with the provisions attached to it. The House has certainly indicated its position. I would think the most orderly proceeding would be to make the arrangement at five o'clock, unless the House is now prepared to agree that at five o'clock private members' hour will be given over to government business on the understanding that Bill C-92 will be dealt with at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Privy Council whether certain times have been set aside for any debate on the objections submitted concerning the revision of the electoral map of the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: We have not yet reached the regular Thursday period of time for House business. However, the hon. member has put a question about whether any arrangement is envisaged at the moment to take care of the debates under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there are some discussions now going on, having in mind setting aside a couple of days to deal with all the objections that have been registered with respect to redistribution. I understand that the form of the order is now being drafted. I hope to put it on the order paper within the next day or so.
21804-16'/2

March 30, 1976
Flu Vaccine ENERGY


TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO URANIUM ENRICHMENT STUDIES IN QUEBEC
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2)
I am tabling copies, in both official languages, of correspondence relating to uranium enrichment studies in the province of Quebec. Similar correspondence is being tabled in the Quebec legislature.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that my department has accepted the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee on Immunizing Agents for a selective immunization of high risk groups of Canadians against the A/Swine strain of influenza.
The Committee recommended that:
1)	Bivalent A/Swine and A/Victoria influenza vaccine be made available to those of all ages who have such chronic conditions as heart disease, chronic bronchopulmonary disease, chronic renal disease, diabetes mellitus and other chronic metabolic disorders, and to all persons over 65 years of age.
2)	Monovalent A/Swine influenza vaccine be made available for persons between the ages of 20 and 50 (highest risk 20-40 years of age) with priority being given to those responsible for maintenance of essential services.
3)	A/Swine influenza vaccine is not recommended as a routine for infants and children because of the increased incidence and severity of adverse reactions to the vaccine in those under the age of 16 years.
All provinces have accepted in principle the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee. Discussions are continuing with various manufacturers and the United States government on the availability of vaccine supplies.
In discussions with the provinces, my department offered to take responsibility for locating vaccine supplies and negotiating purchases. Because of a limited domestic capability to produce flu vaccine, it is anticipated that Canada may have to import the majority of doses.
While it is impossible to say for certain that an epidemic of A/Swine influenza will occur in the fall of 1976, the National Advisory Committee was of the opinion further A/Swine influenza virus infections in humans are possible and even likely to occur in the next year. On all previous occasions when a major new strain of influenza A virus has become established, epidemics or pandemics have resulted.
In mid-February 1976 a virus strain of A/Swine influenza was identified from four men at Fort Dix, New Jersey. This virus strain is similar to that which is suspected to have been responsible for the 1918-19 influenza pandemic which infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide, including one of every six Canadians, and resulted in

approximately 20 million deaths, including 45,000 in Canada. Since the first isolation at Fort Dix, one of the four men has died and there is now laboratory confirmation that 21 per cent of the total personnel have been infected with this virus.
Officials of my department have been in close touch with their American counterparts and are fully informed of the situation in the United States. Contact has also been made with the World Health Organization in Geneva, the WHO World Influenza Centre in London, England, and U.K. health authorities on this matter.
Vaccines to prevent influenza have been available for 40 years, and with technological advances, their efficacy has increased. A specific vaccine will provide maximum protection only against the virus strain from which it is prepared, and less protection against closely related virus strains. Protection commences approximately three weeks after vaccination.
During the past winter, influenza B, which is considered to be a less severe illness than influenza A, has been common in Canada, and is, therefore, not anticipated in epidemic proportions in the 1976-77 season. However, clinical illness due to A/Victoria/75 is currently being experienced in Canada, and it is too early to determine how many will have been infected, and conversely, how many Canadians remain susceptible. For this reason it is likely that a further outbreak of A/Victoria influenza may be experienced in Canada during the 1976-77 influenza season. It is therefore important that those high risk population groups for whom influenza vaccine has been recommended in the past, should be offered protection against the A/Victoria strain.
Similarly, the apparent absence of A/Swine influenza infection in humans in Canada since the 1918-19 pandemic has led to the development of a large population susceptible to the A/Swine virus. The New Jersey experience has demonstrated that this virus now has previously unrecognized capabilities of human-to-human transmission.
Influenza vaccine is prepared from fertilized chicken eggs infected with influenza virus. The virus in the vaccine is inactivated with formalin and thus the vaccine is known as a "killed vaccine". Immunization with a killed vaccine does not involve injection of live virus into the recipient. In the past, adverse reactions to influenza vaccine have occurred with some frequency, particularly in infants and young children. Although these reactions have been considerably reduced by new production methods, it is not advisable to recommend large scale routine immunization in this group.
In the light of the 1918 influenza pandemic experience in which individuals 20-50 years of age experienced the highest mortality rates, such persons are again considered to be at similar risk to infection from A/Swine and in need of protection.
The elderly and chronically ill require routine protection annually against the prevailing influenza strain-in this case A/Victoria. In addition, the elderly, who either escaped infection in 1918-19 outbreak, or whose immunity levels are inadequate, should receive protection against swine influenza. Hence the recommendation for the use of bivalent vaccine in this group.
March 30, 1976

A selective immunization program for high risk groups of Canadians should provide adequate protection for the public and, in addition, help to reduce the potential of worldwide spread of influenza A/Swine virus. The high degree of cooperation already evident in federal-provincial discussions on this matter indicates that the immunization program should be successful in achieving these goals.
Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House and in view of the exceptional circumstances of this case, I would like to table in English and in French, a copy of the report of the National Advisory Committee on Immunizing Agents.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the meat of this statement I want to express some displeasure about the fact that the minister provided a copy of his comments only very shortly before the sitting began. It is impossible to make a detailed study of the announcement in such a short space of time. Further, it is rather strange he should have chosen not to let us see the report of the National Advisory Committee on Immunizing Agents, but that he should simply have tabled it at the end of his comments. The minister points to the report now, but he sees I am on my feet and obviously I cannot look at the report or study it.
Having said that, I agree that a vigorous national immunization program should be undertaken. I am somewhat confused by a number of statements the minister has been making on this subject in the past few days as well as today. He tells us a selective program was chosen, but he does not give us the reasons for making this choice rather than opting for the innoculation of the total population as the Americans have decided to do. Had I seen the advisory committee's report in advance, I might have got the answer from that report. But since I did not have that opportunity I shall have to make my comments on the basis of the statements which the minister made.
On March 25, in response to a question from my hon. friend from Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) the minister told the House that Canada has the capacity to produce 300,000 vaccine doses by next fall. That number coincides, incidentally, with a press report suggesting that the Armand Frappier Institute, University of Quebec, is capable of producing that number of doses. The minister also suggests that the majority of the vaccine to be used here would have to be imported from the United States. Yet in a telephone interview with Dr. Salk, the man famous for having developed the polio vaccine-he is now the director of a large U.S. government viral research establishment-expressed the opinion that the United States would not have any of this vaccine available for export until November, which would be too late for us. Another press report suggests that the United States might find it difficult to find enough vaccine to meet its own needs.
Further to this, I have information from Connaught Laboratories suggesting that if the department of national health gave them the go-ahead, so to speak, they would be capable of obtaining machinery which could produce between five million and ten million doses in this country by the end of the year. It is strange the minister chose not to
Flu Vaccine
mention anything about that. Perhaps we can conclude from his utterances in the past few days that he only went to the Armand Frappier Institute and did not bother to ask Connaught what they could do. Apparently Connaught has an option on some special machinery which could produce these large numbers of doses for us; this machinery could be purchased. They had some reservations about the availability of eggs, and we could possibly enlist the help of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) as far as eggs are concerned; he has recently had some problems disposing of them.
The statement made by the minister is woefully lacking with respect to certain information. Additional information must be provided in order that the House might appreciate the problem the hon. gentleman is facing. Perhaps we could then understand why the figure he has given us seems to be at such variance with the figures I have been able to obtain with respect to our production capability. The minister suggests that those between the ages of 20 and 50 would be given A swine vaccine and that those who are suffering from debilitating illnesses, and all those over 65, would be given a combined vaccine of A swine virus and A Victoria virus. This leaves a substantial segment of our population unprotected-all those between the ages of 50 and 65 and all those under the age of 16.
In the same statement the minister says the vaccine is not being given to those under the age of 16 because of the possibility of adverse reactions. Yet children under the age of 16 who are ill will be given it. This suggests to me that perhaps the danger from an adverse reaction is less than the danger of the disease itself. Maybe an explanation should be given us with regard to this point. We know from past experience, from the experience in New Jersey, that this virus is transmittable from human to human, and it is therefore important that all who live in this country should be protected to the best of our capability. We find in the minister's statement the suggestion that there is a large reservoir of susceptible people, a situation which calls for the placing of greater emphasis on a more comprehensive immunization program.
One of the questions I want to put to the minister is this: Who is to bear the cost of the administration of this program? I believe the minister told us earlier that the federal government would pay for the vaccine and that perhaps the provincial governments would bear the cost of administration and distribution. But he made no further comment on that aspect today. He told us, however, that in addition to those in the various age groups who would be protected, those responsible for the maintenance of essential services would also be vaccinated. I wonder what he means by that, precisely.
When we talk on other subjects and try to determine what essential services are, the government always pleads total ignorance. I am interested in finding out what these essential services are. I wonder whether members of the government of Canada will be included. It occurs to me we might find the country runs much better without the government of Canada than with it. In any case, we shall have an opportunity to question the minister a little later. In the meantime, perhaps he will give serious thought to the questions I have raised so he can deal with them in a few minutes' time.

March 30, 1976
Flu Vaccine


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express our approval of the decision the government has made, and in particular our approval of the announcement being made at this time, so that the necessary preparations can get under way for the immunization which is anticipated. I suppose that this is one of those occasions when a member ought to declare his interest. I happen to be one of the millions who suffered through an attack of swine flu in December, 1918, but I was one of the lucky ones; I survived. Perhaps I should say, luckily for this House I survived!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That halo is hanging heavy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to know some hon. members are listening. My other interest, of course, is that now that I am over 65 I am in the group that is to get this vaccination universally. However, having declared my interest, may I go on to say that we were hoping that there would not be undue delay in making and announcing this decision. We hope that suggestions such as have just been made by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) will be considered, particularly with respect to finding sources in this country for producing the vaccine so that the program can go ahead.
I note that there have been consultations with the committee referred to whose report has been tabled. I note there has been consultation withh the provinces. I should like to suggest to the minister that even though relations between the government and the medical research community of Canada may not be of the best at the moment in view of what is being done to grants for medical research, perhaps there should be close consultation on this matter with those of that community.
We anticipate the possibility that some of the decisions in this announcement might have to be modified, and I hope close study will be given to that. There are a great many people in the left-out group-all those between 50 and 65, a considerable number of those between 40 and 50, and even those between 20 and 40 are not covered on a universal basis. When you leave out all those below 16 except those who have the disease, it means that this program is far from universal. So it is really only a step in the right direction. But it is being taken early enough in the year so that plans can be carried out. However, we urge that the program be reviewed, not with the thought of cutting it back at all, but with the thought that perhaps it should be extended.
Like the hon. member for Athabasca, I would be interested in a firm statement by the minister as to who is paying the cost of this program. Obviously, if it is to be of any use to the people of Canada it will have to be paid for at the government level. Is it being paid for by the federal government, or by the provinces; or is it being divided, with the federal government providing the vaccine and the provincial governments providing the services?
I think nothing more needs to be said at this time. As I say, we welcome the fact that this announcement is being made early. The minister and his department can be
assured of the support of this House in proceeding with this program so that an epidemic in Canada of either of the kinds of influenza referred to by the minister, in the latter months of 1976, can be avoided.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the statement that the minister just made, concerning the intentions of the government of Canada as to the A/swine influenza, I wish to point out that I am glad to hear such statements today. This shows that the Department of National Health is concerned at this moment about the problem raised by the reappearance of that virus which seamingly was responsible for the pandemic called the Spanish flu in 1918-19.
The minister points out in thinly veiled terms the possible severeness of the situation, especially if it were to make any progress, since every time there was that A/swine influenza, epidemics occurred whith the terrible effects we know. It must be considered that our bodies no longer have the necessary resources to fight effectively that disease, for it has disappeared for a long time. We know that the virus may be conveyed among human beings, but science still does not know how the disease is conveyed.
For the moment, it seems very difficult to obtain a useful stock of vaccines for Canadians. If we depend on other countries to obtain the vaccines that we lack, what will happen if those countries need them for themselves?
To emphasize the seriousness of the situation, I would like to mention two other facts. The United States have announced their intention to prepare for massive inoculation. The World Health Organization is now concentrating its energies on the problem of the reappearance of this virus. There is certainly no cause for alarm, but before such a situation, which I believe to be even more serious than the minister suggests, we must take some action. It is not unthinkable that it would become impossible to vaccinate everyone who needs it if the disease really took epidemic proportions next fall or next winter. This could certainly greatly worsen a situation which is already difficult in Canada in various aspects.
We must in fact wonder if there are not very specific causes for all this. At any rate, I urge the Minister to continue to examine this problem very seriously and with all the energy required. I believe that our governments, like the rest of Canadians, have to realize that we must unite before this problem and concentrate our efforts and allocate the money required. Later might be too late.
We hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will study very closely the age and group selection made and recommended by the advisory group whose report has just been submitted to the House and which I have not read. In any event, we are certain that this is not a matter of politics or of saving money. We are all aware that there are much more important things at stake, and that the health of Canadians is involved.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister can clarify what, in his view, is Canada's capacity in terms of producing this flu vaccine at the moment.

March 30, 1976


Marc Lalonde: The capacity is exactly as I said it was, Mr. Speaker-300,000 doses. With the purchase of additional equipment, the Armand Frappier Institute in Montreal could produce perhaps up to a million doses. As far as Connaught is concerned, they have indicated to us in the last few days that by purchasing equipment and running a sort of crash program they might be able to produce between five million and ten million doses. But here again, in both these cases this capacity does not exist at the present time and would have to be developed. We will have to look at this in terms of the supply and the price of what we can get, and at what price from abroad, and what would be the cost and capacity of delivery of domestic supplies additional to the 300,000 doses that we expect it is possible to produce.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Dr. Salk of the United States has indicated that it is not likely that there will be exports from the U.S. until November, can the minister indicate why he has not given the go-ahead to Connaught to purchase this new machinery and start immediate production, since this could turn out to be a very grave matter for the country? [DOT]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Salk is not a spokesman for the U.S. government on this matter.


Mr. Gilbert:: Would the minister tell the House who is going to bear the expense of this program, whether it will be the federal government, the provincial government, or is it going to be shared?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this program is going to be administered on exactly the same basis as any other drug program. Some administration might be eligible for costsharing under medical care or hospital insurance; some might not. But there is no different administrative set-up for this particular program than for any other vaccine program in Canada at the present time. It is standard administration. We have been in touch with all the provinces in this respect. There will be no special administrative set-up for this particular purpose.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question which is supplementary to that of my predecessor.
Could the minister tell us if he has met provincial representatives to form a medical task force which would look after medication and manufacturing of vaccines in cooperation with provincial health departments?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it might be useful to the hon. member to know that the advisory committee is made up of distinguished epidemiologists from all parts of Canada including provincial representatives. For instance, the chairman of the committee comes from the University of Alberta and other members are from the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, some from my own department, from the British Columbia Department of Health, from the Ontario Department of Health, from the Quebec Department of Social Affairs, from Sherbrooke University and from the Manitoba Department of Health. It is quite representative of various areas in the sector of the scientific community and of different provincial health departments.
Flu Vaccine


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister rejects the statement of Dr. Salk who is the leading authority on this subject in the United States, will the minister indicate what information he has, how many doses are available from the U.S. for Canada, and at what time they will be exported to Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it would be easier for me to provide the answers to some of these questions if the hon. member did not always distort what I have said. I did not say I rejected Dr. Salk's statement; I said he was not the authority to speak on behalf of the American government. That is a very different thing. In addition, before answering the question I might tell the hon. member that I sent a copy of my statement to his leader at 12.50 today. If he did not get it until a much later time, I am not responsible for that. If it took him more than two hours to read 4l/2 pages, there is not much I can do to help him understand the issue.
As far as the question itself is concerned, we are in touch with the United States government. Traditionally, we have been able to obtain between 7 per cent and 9 per cent of U.S. production. We have discussed this with United States officials. The question is being raised at a very senior level of the United States administration and I hope to have an answer on the subject in the next few days. There is no reason to believe we will not be able to count on roughly the same proportion of supply as that which we have received in the past. Frankly, there is not much point in the United States immunizing the majority of its population if there are millions of people up north of it who are not immunized at all and who might be subject to this particular influenza. It is to the advantage of all of North America to immunize as many people as possible. The selective approach within Canada has been set out by the national advisory committee on the subject.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister feels there is going to be a sufficient supply if the United States comes across with the amount he thinks it will, will he indicate why he has chosen to be so selective in this program, rather than providing the vaccine to people between the ages of 50 and 65, for example, who are also susceptible, perhaps less so than others but amongst whom deaths could also occur?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the reason is very simple. This was the recommendation of the national advisory committee. The announcement I made today is an exact reproduction of the report of that committee, and I hope the hon. member will take the time to look at it.

March 30, 1976
Order Paper Questions FOREIGN LAND OWNERSHIP ACT


MEASURE TO PROHIBIT ACQUISITION OF LAND BY NON-CANADIAN CITIZENS OR LANDED IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-429, respecting the acquisition of land by non-Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, the bill addresses itself to the problem of non-residents of Canada holding land here for investment purposes. The bill is called the Foreign Land Ownership Act and prohibits the acquisition of land by persons who are not Canadian citizens or landed immigrants, except for residential and recreational uses, up to a maximum of ten acres, or for the purposes of a business permitted under the terms of the Foreign Investment Review Act. This is a great problem in urban areas of Canada where non-residents tie up land, thereby increasing housing prices. The bill is addressed to that problem.


[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. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,604, 3,711, 3,849, 3,851, 3,971, 4,021, 4,053 and 4,770.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	How much has been granted for the promotion of the French language as part of (a) bilingualism (b) multiculturalism in (i) Newfoundland (ii) Nova Scotia (iii) Prince Edward Island (iv) New Brunswick (v) Ontario (vi) Manitoba (vii) Alberta (viii) Saskatchewan (ix) British Columbia?
2.	How much has been granted to Quebec for the promotion of the English language within these programmes?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Department of the Secretary of State and the minister responsible for multiculturalism as follows: 1. (a) Newfoundland: 1970-71, $123,485; 1971-72, $173,419; 1972-73, $224,891; 1973-74, $193,331; 1974-75, $498,993. Total: $1,214,059. Prince Edward Island; 1970-71, $101,490; 1971-72, $128,905; 1972-73, $227,429; 1973-74, $243,128; 1974-75, $405,845. Total: $1,106,797. Nova Scotia: 1970-71, $733,615; 1971-72, $847,585; 1972-73, $951,235; 1973-74, $794,088; 1974-75, $1,450,149. Total: $4,776,672. New Brunswick: 1970-71, $3,694,660; 1971-72, $6,664,993; 1972-73, $5,769,933; 1973-74, $6,542,304; 1974-75, $6,212,141. Total: $28,884,031. Ontario: 1970-71, $12,164,400; 1971-72, $21,438,234; 1972-73, $18,230,841; 1973-74, $22,240,455; 1974-75, $23,142,093. Total: $97,216,023. Manitoba: 1970-71, $885,557; 1971-72, $1,133,693; 1972-73, $1,189,253; 1973-74, $997,812;	1974-75, $1,721,733. Total:

$5,928,048. Saskatchewan: 1970-71, $597,863; 1971-72, $432,914; 1972-73, $784,269; 1973-74, $570,889; 1974-75, $980,064. Total: $3,365,999. Alberta: 1970-71, $865,359; 1971-72, $1,075,811; 1972-73, $1,026,007; 1973-74, $884,404; 1974-75, $1,342,045. Total: $5,193,626. British Columbia: 1970-71, $883,558; 197172, $1,018,744; 1972-73 $819,857; 1973-74, $1,019,025; 1974-75, $1,669,663. Total: $5,410,847. (b) Direct support for the promotion of the French language is not the focus of this programme's activity.
2. Bilingualism, Quebec: 1970-71, $29,986,813; 1971-72, $42,600,236; 1972-73, $34,165,243; 1973-74; $39,486,575; 1974-75, $50,441,472. Total: $196,680,339. Multiculturalism: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,956, of the over $5,000,000 spent on contracts awarded to Kodak Canada Limited, Toronto, Ontario for 1974, how many dollars in goods purchased were directed to (a) the Department of Veterans Affairs (b) the Unemployment Insurance Commission (c) Statistics Canada (d) the department of the Solicitor General (e) the Department of the Secretary of State (f) the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (g) the Department of Public Works (h) the Public Service Commission (i) the Post Office Department (j) the Department of National Revenue (k) the Canadian International Development Agency?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by several departments as follows: (a) $21,581.00; (b) $134,701.04; (c) $4,583.98; (d) $283,106.78; (e) $2,052.94; (f) $18,864.35; (g) $19,794.00; (h) $620.52; (i) $5,041.39; (j) $158,104.92; (k) $16,043.17. The Department of Supply and Services placed contracts on behalf of customer departments as follows: (a) $7,000.00; (b) $111,000.00; (c) $5,000.00; (d) $19,000.00; (e) nil; (f) nil; (g) nil; (h) nil; (i) $4,000.00; (j) $143,000.00; (k) nil.
Note: The Department of Supply and Services also placed Master Standing Offers at the National and Regional levels for the procurement of photographic processing materials such as film, paper, chemicals, etc. These Master Standing Offers are negotiated with suppliers in order to establish a fixed price for commodities and services, against which individual customer departments can obtain their requirements throughout the year. As the Department of Supply and Services does not obtain copies of the customer departments' requisitions, it is not possible to determine the value of procurements made by individual customer departments. Replies submitted by the various departments or agencies mentioned indicate the value of purchase.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, have any experiments been conducted with the use of trawlers possessing an icebreaking capability in order to lengthen the effective fishing season for offshore fishermen in PEI and (a) if so, what are the results (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the
March 30,1976

Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Due to a steady stock decline in offshore ground fish, plans for experimentation with trawlers possessing ice breaking capabilities were suspended.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, have specific measures been taken since the Plan's inception to increase the aggregate catch for PEI fishermen and, if so (a) what were they (b) on what date was each measure introduced (c) what was its cost (i) per year (ii) in total (d) what affect has it had in terms of increasing the aggregate fish catch?
2.	Are new similar measures planned or under consideration for Phase 2 and, if so (a) what are they (b) do they represent a change in objective from Phase 1 (c) for what reason were new measures felt to be necessary?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Yes. (a) The development of aquaculture for the raising of oysters was the only specific measure taken because the aggregate catch of most species of fish traditional to Prince Edward Island inshore fishermen has reached or is approaching maximum yield, (b) 1971. (c) The precise cost of this specific measure is not kept. However, total expenditures for the research and investigation project (which includes oyster aquaculture) were as follows:
Fiscal Year
Total Expenditures
71-	72
72-	73
73-	74
74-	75


[Stage Direction]
Total
[Stage Direction]
(d) The full effects of the aquaculture program cannot be measured until the oysters have grown to market maturity which normally takes five to seven years from the date of seeding.
2. No specific measures are planned or under consideration for Phase II. However, if the search for fish species of market potential is successful then measures can be designed to fit the opportunity.
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the Minister of State for Urban Affairs received the final report on the condition of veterans housing in the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	Has either Minister received a proposal from the Newfoundland Command of the Canadian Legion proposing a programme to allow the command to implement a programme to repair or rehabilitate housing for veterans or widows of veterans in the Province and, if so, has it been (a) considered by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (b) brought before the Cabinet?
3.	Has any decision been reached by the Cabinet to provide the financial assistance necessary to support the survey of the Provincial Command in the Province and, if so, what was the decision?
4.	Has the Cabinet approved such a programme and (a) if so, what are the details (b) if not, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Ministers of Urban Affairs and Veterans Affairs as follows: 1. Yes.
2. Yes. (a) Yes.
2 (b), 3 and 4. The inner workings of cabinet, cabinet committees (including membership therein), and the services rendered by support staff are traditionally considered confidential matters. Canadian precedents in this regard flowed from British practice over many years. In response to a question in the House the Canadian Prime Minister of the day on February 4, 1960 in part replied: "The means by which the cabinet conducts its business are traditionally regarded as its own domestic affair, and questions on the subject are normally neither asked nor answered." A detailed answer to the question would be a departure from the traditional position that has always been taken that meetings of the cabinet are private and no information is given.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What was the total cost to the government for renovating the CAE Air Canada building at 570 Ferry Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, which houses the Department of National Revenue Tax Data Centre?
2.	What are the details of the amount the government is paying to lease the building (a) per year (b) per square foot?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Contract cost for renovations: $1,355,684. Expenditures for current year to January 31, 1976: $1,283,230.
2. (a) $384,000 per year, (b) $4.82 rent per square foot.


Mr. Corbin: 1.	Has the government contributed financially, by way of loans or grants, directly or indirectly, to the termination of work and acquisition of lands and material for the tourist project Les jardins de la Republique, near Edmunston, New Brunswick, and, if so, in each case (a) through which departments (b) under what programme or agreement (c) in what amount (d) during what financial year?
2.	Does the government intend to make other contributions to the project, either directly or through agreements with the Provincial Government of New Brunswick?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Yes. (a) Regional Economic Expansion; (b) Agricultural and Rural Development Act III (ARDA III); (c) $150,111; (d) 1973-74, $148,309; 1974-75, $1,802.
2. No.


Mr. Symes: 1. Has the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources at any time held discussions or exchanged correspondence with Mr. Don Moore, or any other company official of Phoenix Canada Oil Co. Ltd., in connection with the nuclear stimulation (the use of nuclear devices) in the tar

March 30, 1976
Order Paper Questions
sands and, if not, does the government intend to carry out such discussions or exchange of correspondence?
2.	Has the government ruled out the possibility of using nuclear stimulation as a means of expediting the production of oil from the tar sands and, if not, since Phoenix Canada Oil owns the patents for nuclear stimulation devices, who would produce such devices?
3.	Has the government carried out or is it carrying out or does it intend to carry out any (a) feasibility studies of nuclear stimulation (b) environment studies in the tar sands?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Atomic Energy Control Board report as follows: 1, 2 and 3. The Atomic Energy Control Board received a letter dated May 30, 1974 from Mr. S. D. Moore, President of Phoenix Canada Oil Co. Ltd. seeking approval to detonate a nuclear device in northeastern Alberta. The Board replied to Mr. Moore in a letter dated January 8, 1975 that after due consideration and on the advice of other government departments which were consulted, the Canadian government was not prepared at that time to approve test nuclear explosions in the Athabasca Tar Sands. The government's view has not changed in the intervening year.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 4,919 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of the Local Initiatives Programme, were any subsidies granted to the Constituency of Temiscamingue and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each approved project, what was the (a) name of the project (b) amount (c) year of approval (d) number of jobs generated (e) name of the municipality involved?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 29, 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. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, when we reached ten o'clock last night I was speaking on the amendment to this bill and had pointed out that in order to administer certain parts, a great number of bureaucrats would be required both for the purpose of administration and for registration of gun owners.
At this time I should like to point out that an applicant for a gun licence must obtain the signatures of two people of good character and reputation who will vouch for his or her character and undertake to provide sort of a guarantee that the gun or guns will not be used for criminal purposes. I suggest there will not be many people who will want to go that far out on the limb even for a very good friend. We have already set out the rationale for the secret possession or illegal registration of guns by those who cannot obtain such guarantees from two citizens in their community. I am sure the minister has already thought of the difficulty this could pose for a large percentage of law-abiding Canadians who will be dependent on friends or relatives regarding a gun application. The effect will be severely to limit the application of the law.
North Americans will simply not abide by a law they consider to be oppressive or against the rights of the majority. Let us take a hypothetical case of a gun owner who has his house burgled and his gun stolen and used in a subsequent crime. This happens frequently, or at least it happens often enough for us to know that criminals do not abide by gun registration laws any more than they abide by laws concerning break and entry, theft, assault, or any other law. Criminals steal weapons from police cars, police stations, armouries, and even from policemen. Requiring law-abiding citizens to register guns will not have any effect on this type of crime or this type of acquisition of guns.
Responsible gun owners do not leave their guns around for people to pick up or steal; they keep their guns secured. I do not believe anyone would object to laws concerning the safe and secure storage of guns when they are not in use. However, criminals are not respecters of that kind of security. They pick locks, knock down doors and windows; they use axes, crowbars, screwdrivers, hammers and many other tools available in every hardware store. If a housebreaker came upon a gun cabinet or closet, or guns secured by chains, he would simply use the tools of his trade to obtain the guns, just as is done to obtain money, jewels and other kinds of loot.
Chains and locks can be sawed through with a hacksaw, closets can be chopped open with hatchets and axes, doors can be forced in a variety of ways by the expert criminal. My experience as an insurance underwriter convinces me that experienced and determined housebreakers or safe crackers simply will not be stopped. The only way that I can think of to stop them is to convince them that they will be caught, convicted and imprisoned and that they will not be allowed to go out for weekends.
Mr. Speaker, in my area there are a great number of summer cottages. Many of the owners leave rifles and
March 30, 1976

shotguns there, probably because they do not want to transport them back and forth to their principal residence. Even if these are well hidden, they are the things that burglars seem to find and steal. The Ontario Provincial Police have pointed out that burglars are not interested in furniture but are usually looking for guns, whisky or any other type of alcoholic beverage.


Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan):: What about rum?


Stan Darling: Rum, too. A few weeks ago there was a news item on a television news program about an upsurge in gun sales in one of the western provinces since this gun control legislation was tabled. This is a natural reaction by people who feel that their rights are being transgressed, and I would not be surprised to find that the same thing is happening right across the country. If this legislation is passed, I would also suggest that a large number of guns will not be registered.
In the Ottawa Journal of March 10 there was a supplement put out by the Canadian Tire Corporation. It was advertising a special price on a Winchester repeating rifle of $38.88, and also a special price for a rifle-scope at $10.88. That can be a pretty dangerous weapon, Mr. Speaker, if it falls into the wrong hands. I believe the same advertisement was run by Simpsons-Sears.
The gun manufacturers and their sales outlets are making capital out of this proposed legislation. Everyone that I have talked with concerning registration of gun owners has been in agreement, almost without exception, that some type of registration would be acceptable and even desirable for these weapons, but why should we set up an enormous bureaucracy to administer a registration process when we already have tens of thousands of police stations and detachments across the country? The police are responsible for public safety and security, and they would be better suited for the task of administering a gun law than an appointed official with no training or background in law enforcement.
On March 8, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) mentioned that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford) had stated that crime in Canada is under control, and the hon. member pointed out, astutely, that nothing could be further from the truth. Crime is not under control. It is on the rise in Canada, as elsewhere, and we cannot just sit by and say smugly that it is not as bad in Canada as it is somewhere else, Mr. Speaker. I am not interested in crime somewhere else. I am interested, and I am concerned about the rise in crime, particularly violent crime, here in Canada.
The hon. member for New Westminster pointed out that there is no mention in this bill of the serious problem of hard drugs, of how the Minister of Justice proposes to control the importation, sale and use of hard drugs in Canada which is, incidentally, one of the chief causes of all types of crime today. It is a point well taken, Mr. Speaker. I have to ask, why there is not some mention of this serious aspect of crime in this bill? Why do we not find some slight clue that the government is as interested in the causes of crime as it is in coddling criminals after they are convicted. I do not suggest that we get as tough as some countries in the world where the death penalty has been imposed for
Measures Against Crime
mere possession in an effort to stamp out this insidious and pernicious practice.
More money, more personnel and more support of every type must be put at the disposal of those charged with preventing the importation of hard drugs into Canada and to those charged with tracking down drugs and drug peddlers within our country. The penalties for trafficking and importing drugs must be made severe enough to deter the most hardened and skeptical criminals. I say skeptical because this government has earned the unenviable reputation of being soft on criminals. I do not believe that the criminal in our country today really expects to be kept in prison very long if he is convicted and sentenced. We must remove the skepticism and replace it with respect for the law and our law enforcement agencies. That respect will only come with the knowledge that we in Canada are determined to stamp out crime whenever and wherever we find it.
One provision of this bill that the majority of members will object to is the one concerning wiretapping. I believe this provision should be modified. There is no doubt that wiretapping, or the interception of telephone communications, has been and will be a most important tool in the hands of law enforcement agencies, especially in their efforts to control organized crime. Those of us who live in rural areas are quite used to having our communications intercepted, as anyone familiar with a party line telephone can attest. We are not concerned one way or the other with wiretapping legislation, but in congested urban centres it is another matter.
As long as this practice is engaged in judiciously by law enforcement agencies, with the consent of the courts as prescribed by present law, then I cannot think of any reason why the law should be relaxed. I do not think it would do much in the way of hindering investigations if the persons whose conversations are intercepted are notified of this fact within a reasonable period of time after the investigation has been completed. Perhaps we can work out some plan whereby persons who have been found to be engaged in criminal activity as a result of such taps will not have to be told of the taps while the investigation is under way.
It seems to me that within a period of 90 days the police should be able to determine whether a person is using his or her telephone in the commission of criminal activities. This requirement to disclose the use of wiretaps will limit, and possibly even prevent, indiscriminate use of this practice. While I am certainly in favour of giving our police every advantage over criminals, I also want to protect citizens' rights.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask why the government did not see fit to include some provisions in this bill to deal with the problem of alcoholism and its related abuses, and to comment on a couple of other problems areas. Alcoholism and drug addiction have been combined as a general problem area by most, if not all, of the agencies dealing with these problem. Like my colleague from New Westminster, I am appalled that the Minister of Justice has not seen fit to tell us that the federal government is at least as concerned about these problems as the rest of us.

March 30, 1976
Measures Against Crime
I have some startling figures with regard to the rise in the number of collisions on our highways, many of them fatal or resulting in disabling injuries, where teenage drinking drivers were involved. In 1967, in Ontario, there were 1,089 collisions on the highways involving teenage drinking drivers. The figure rose gradually for the next four years until 1971 when it almost doubled to 2,277. In 1972 it rose to 3,623. In 1974, the last year for which complete figures are available, the figure was 5,385, almost five times the number of collisions involving teenage drinking drivers in 1967.
While I realize that these figures are for Ontario, this is not something which is limited to Ontario alone. It is a national problem and as such it deserves some attention from the Minister of Justice and possibly the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). At least we in Ontario realize that it is a serious problem, on the basis of statistics, namely, that the age of drivers involved in collisions when impaired has dropped to the 17 and 18 year old group. The provincial government is reassessing its decision to drop to 18 the legal age for drinking. However, as I have said, this is not only an Ontario problem and I should like to see some indication that the federal government is concerned about it. It has been known for many years that every conceivable kind of drug, soft and hard, is available in our schools almost on demand, not only in high schools but in schools where the average age is from 10 years to 13 years. This is certainly an area in which the federal government could do more than it is now-but there is nothing in this bill dealing with drugs or alcohol.
Violence on television is another problem area which has not been explored or examined in depth by the federal government, despite the fact that at least 90 per cent of these violent programs are available only on the two national television networks. It has been suggested, rightly or wrongly-and I am not an expert in these matters-that violence on television can often trigger a response on the part of people who are deranged and can be encouraged to act a violent scene portrayed on a television show. This does not apply in the case of television dramas. It is believed by many competent psychiatrists and socialists that when news programs dwell unnecessarily on the gory details of a particularly horrible crime, a deranged person thousands of miles from the scene of the crime might be tempted to emulate the crime to the last detail.
I believe that the whole question of the portrayal of violence on television, in all its forms, needs to be examined in depth by a competent individual or group. We should have more information and more opinions on this subject than are available to us at the present time. I would hate to have to weigh the merits of a proposal as to how we should deal with this matter on the basis of the scant information available of the effects or possible effects this type of thing could have on the minds of the young or on the minds of deranged adults.
I recently had the opportunity of meeting, with some other hon. members, the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. A. W. Johnson. I asked him for his views on this contentious subject. He admitted he had no direct solution or answer to this problem as there were arguments on both sides. Therefore, he let the matter go on

that basis. But I certainly feel that this is worth investigating further. In the February edition of Canada Gunsport there is an article headed "Gun control fails in the United Kingdom; chief inspector admits 50 years of controls useless." In the article which follows it is stated:
We wonder if we are not asking the wrong questions. The rise in the criminal use of firearms does not appear to have been influenced in any significant way by changes in the system of firearms control.
The criminal knows that for a professional robbery the chances of detection are low and the rewards high. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment and he knows that if proven guilty he is likely to receive a substantial prison sentence. The odds against him being caught may be something like 7 or 10 to 1 in his favour. When the death penalty is applied he is not prepared to accept 7 or 10 to 1 odds on a chance of being hanged.
The article goes on-not attributing this to Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire constabulary-to say that in Holland, where television programs such as CTV's "W-5" has held gun control up as a solution, the recent events with that train in Beilen and Amsterdam have shown that gun control has been a failure. Austria has strict firearms controls, but the attack on the OPEC meeting by terrorists in which three people were killed supports the suggestion that we are asking the wrong questions. The chief inspector also made this statement;
Guns were always available to any criminal who chose to use them. Firearms controls do not appear to stop this class of criminal from obtaining a gun when he felt that he could use one.
Then there is another reference which is certainly of interest. Meeting on December 18, the Massachusetts police chiefs' association, comprising 200 police chiefs, unanimously went on record opposing a petition being circulated to ban hand-guns, and they gave as their reason that criminals would not turn in hand-guns because the supreme court had ruled that illegal hand-guns do not have to be registered as that would amount to self-incrimination; that the majority of law abiding citizens would turn in their guns and would then be at the mercy of criminals; that the law would make criminals out of law-abiding persons who did not turn in their guns; that crime had increased dramatically and the police cannot protect everyone; and that therefore a citizen should have the right to protect his family and himself.
As a personal observation, I point out that people tend to identify with the police force and the fire department. Apparently we are good citizens if we have fire extinguishers in our homes, because we know that firemen cannot be there instantly. Apparently we are bad citizens if we have guns in our homes, although the police cannot be there instantly. The fire department does not show up until after the fire has started, and the police do not start showing any interest until after a crime has been committed.
Along with a great many other members of parliament, I have received a tremendous amount of correspondence with regard to gun control, most of it highly critical of the proposed legislation, and some of it in favour of some form of control, so it cannot be stated that we are against any form of control whatsoever. I have here a letter from a former member of the RCMP who might take a rather stronger and more severe attitude than would be acceptable to people today, but he states very strongly the importance of police departments having the facilities, manpower and everything else available for dealing with hard
March 30, 1976

drugs. He also states, in no uncertain terms, that youth and alcoholism are very important items responsible for a great deal of crime, and violent crime. He says he has reservations about wiretapping. He states:
While I never approved of wiretapping, much, RCMP did some during the second war. It is O.K. for interception of top criminals, evidence, but to me appeared a weakness, a crutch. I secured my evidence the hard way.
I do not know what he meant by that. He went on to emphasize that our soft tactics must stop; we must go after habitual criminals, see they are put away and remain put away.
Firearms control cannot even be justified with the excuse that it will reduce accidental injury and death. In Ontario, accidental hunting deaths fell from 71 in 1961 to eight in 1970. This favourable statistic is probably the result of hunter safety courses run by local anglers and hunters' associations. Nationally, our accidental death rate due to automobiles was 26.4 per 100,000 persons in 1973. Although it is estimated that there are between five million and ten million firearms in Canada, the accidental death rate due to them is so low that neither the Canada Year Book of 1973 nor the Canadiana Encyclopedia even mention it in their accidental death rate tables. The rate must be less than the last entry in the table, which was one per 100,000.
All the above information and more indicates that gun control has little or no effect on the criminal. However, gun control does severely limit the legitimate ownership and use of firearms in the hands of everyone else. Presumably, these facts are well known to the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice.
It seems, Mr. Speaker, that criminals will always acquire weapons for crime, whether they be stolen, purchased, imported to the country or assembled in back-room workshops. Many first class firearms have been manufactured by hobbyists for legal purposes.
The Minister of Justice has stated that the availability of firearms is the major cause of crime. This has proven false. As an example he took gunless Japan, which has a low murder-arrest rate, but said nothing about Ireland which has the toughest gun laws in the world. He also said nothing about Switzerland, which has an extremely low crime rate. There it is the law that every male of military age shall keep a government-owned firearm in his home. We could solve our crime problems relatively easily, not by punishing and restraining law abiding citizens but simply by taking trouble-makers out of circulation. We can impose capital punishment on the worst offenders, and mandatory minimum prison sentences for the rest without chance of parole. They should be released when their sentence is completed.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member who preceded me. This bill contains a good many provisions for combating crime. I propose to restrict my remarks to one small part of the bill, and in response to representations made to me by my constitutents I will talk about the problem of gun control.
Measures Against Crime
Let me make it clear that I support the principle of this bill. I shall vote for it on second reading and hope it will be referred at the earliest possible date to committee. It is my sincere hope that at the committee stage there will be extensive hearings which will deal with the very matters raised by those who feel they will be unfairly treated by the provisions of this bill. I am referring particularly to gun clubs and gun collectors. I am confident that the committee hearings will lead to greater acceptance of the bill because we shall recognize more clearly the problems which Canada faces.
On January 26 of this year I presented a petition to this House signed by 7,486 high school students of the city of Ottawa calling on this House to enact legislation as soon as possible to restrict the availability of firearms, so as to avoid another tragic incident similar to that which took place in an Ottawa area high school on October 27, 1975, and in Brampton on May 4, 1975. The fear of the possible recurrence of such events has created tension in the classrooms and schools of this area and has resulted in deterioration of the learning atmosphere. The petition which was organized and circulated by the students themselves called on the government to "act as quickly as possible" in enacting the necessary legislation. I am relieved to see the measure now before the House, as are many of my constituents who made their feelings known during the Christmas period by responding to a questionnaire which I circulated on a household basis on the subject of gun control.
The results showed that 83 per cent of those who responded-which is about 15 per cent of all households which received the questionnaire-favoured the registration of rifles and firearms; 88 per cent favoured the registration of hand-guns. Eighty three per cent favoured tests to satisfy reasonable standards of competence and safety for everyone owning a gun. There was virtually no opposition to the need to restrict ease of availability of firearms.
I recognize that I represent an urban constituency, and know that in many parts of Canada the tradition of ownership and responsible use of firearms is different from that in some of our larger cities. I can only speak in this House for the people who elected me and express views that I believe they would want me to express. At the same time, like other hon. members I have received a number of well prepared briefs from organizations representing gun clubs and hunters arguing that any new legislation should not violate their rights, namely, the rights of those individuals who have traditionally demonstrated respect for the proper use of firearms in the enjoyment of sport.
Responsible collectors maintain that they may be penalized by the new legislation. Collectors say they will be forced to give up all their operative automatic rifles and machine-guns under the new prohibited weapons clause. Many collections include museum pieces worth a great deal of money to their owners. Collectors have maintained to me that the firing mechanisms, if kept separate from the weapons, are almost impossible for potential thieves to obtain or duplicate. Actually, criminals invariably steal either hand-guns or high-powered rifles which they prefer to machine-guns. I shall return to that in a minute.
Some automatic rifles will not be covered by the prohibited weapons clause. It has been brought to my attention

March 30, 1976
Measures Against Crime
that semi-automatic rifles can be converted to automatic guns with relative ease by people with only limited training. I am referring specifically to the M-l semi-automatic rifle which can be obtained at many locations across Canada. I have in my possession a number of catalogues advertising semi-automatic rifles available both through mail order and for personal shoppers. For example, I have before me a supplement distributed by the Ottawa Citizen earlier this year. In it, a well known local store advertises a .22 calibre target pistol. You can go and pick it put. It suggests that a B-B gun is a nice present for a teenage son.
I am looking, as well, at a Sears' catalogue containing a section on rifles, including automatic rifles, which can be readily purchased. The advertisement says that guns and ammunition will not be sold to persons under 17. I suppose that is intented to salve someone's conscience. Yet it is clear that the public, certainly that part of it which I have the honour to represent here, wants us to restrict the ease with which firearms can be acquired.
I have another announcement in my hand which surprises me. The Globe and Mail of March 4, 1976, reports that the Sudbury police were offering pistols for sale. According to the article, the Sudbury regional police were selling about 100, .32 calibre revolves for about $25 each. The police chief said that the revolvers were originally issued to constables formerly employed by area municipalities. With the amalgamation of the forces into a regional force, the .38 special became standard, so that the .32 calibre became the property of the regional police. They were surplus, and a dollar being a dollar, why not sell them?
It is clear that we have a situation which calls for some kind of legislative restriction. I am not prepared to say that the bill in its present form cannot be improved. It will be the responsibility of hon. members who serve on the committee which looks at this bill to go over it clause by clause, to hear representations from organized groups of citizens and to ensure that the bill represents the best possible protection of the interests of the public.
I am surprised at some of the mail I receive. I have a constituent who is a postman, a letter carrier. He is a man of excellent character. I would have no hesitation in writing a character reference for him at any time. His name is Mr. Wayne Green. Mr. Green has a specialty. He has been collecting machine-guns over the past many years. He has a collection that has cost him approximately $25,000. He described to me in great detail the care that he takes, how he has registered every one of these guns with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and how he keeps them in an inoperable form in his home: the firing mechanisms are stored separately.
I am surprised really at this hobby, although I respect the right to a hobby. There has certainly been nothing illegal about this gentleman pursuing this kind of hobby to date. I said earlier that generally, when thieves steal guns, they do not go for this kind of weapon. I think there is a limit in terms of what the public is prepared to endure. If an underground organization wanted to acquire machine-guns, I suspect that with the use of trained people who could be placed at their disposal they could adapt these guns by reproducing the firing mechanisms. If advertised,

this kind of collection could be a target for some kind of illegal activity.
The problem of dealing with collectors will be very complicated. It may well be that there should be some phasing-out period, that the trading of guns between collectors will have to be restricted and should take place only between those who are registered and recognized as professional collectors. There may be some means by which the investment and savings of those who have chosen this kind of hobby can be given some protection. However, I have to say that I support the principle of the bill and that the public demands this kind of restriction on the availability of firearms. We have a responsibility, in light of the changing conditions of our cities and the pattern of violence that is emerging, to create for at least these parts of our country an environment in which firearms are not so readily available.
I recognize that this is a big country. I know that in the frontier, the northern areas and rural areas, the use of firearms is a very different thing. However, it is clear that for our large urban areas a measure like this will have to be enacted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I see the hon. member for Villeneuve trying to get the floor after he has adjourned the debate on March 9 or 10. Unfortunately the hon. member for Villeneuve was not in the House yesterday when we resumed the debate, and he lost the time alloted to him, even if there were about ten minutes left. He will not be able to get the floor without the unanimous consent of the House.
Does the House agree to let the hon. member continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me to continue the speech which I began on March 11 last and which I had not finished.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if the minister wants I can give him lots of evidence. I shall read a letter I received from the Hunting and Fishing Association of Malartic:
We are against the project to control guns. We think that such a measure amounts to a lack of civic consideration towards all our sportsmen.
Francois Ferron, chairman of the Hunting and Fishing Association of Malartic.
Another group representing hundreds of sportsmen from northwest Quebec is violently opposed to the project of the Minister of Justice.
If the minister wants more, I have other examples to give him. I received a letter from Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard, of Val-d'Or, the chairman of the Hunting and Fishing Association of this municipality.
In that letter, he asks me to help him fight Bill C-83. I was pleased to answer him that he could count on me.
I could give more examples of representations made by people from Senneterre, Chibougamau, Chapais and Cadillac, all towns where most people hunt big and small game.
March 30, 1976

And I could list several other municipalities of my constituency.
Mr. Speaker, when I comment on this bill today, I speak on behalf of the great majority of the people I represent. I know that they entirely support my efforts to bring the Minister of Justice to understand what common sense says about this Bill C-83. I speak on behalf of all those who love hunting and outdoor sports when I ask the minister to withdraw his bill and remove from it the clauses concern-irfg the control of firearms.
As do all other Canadians, people in northwest Quebec want to be protected against criminal activity. They want more severe punishment to be given to habitual criminals. I am sure they approve of the clauses of Bill C-83 which deal with the protection of society against hard-core criminals. But they do not want gun control. They know that honest citizens will be the only ones to suffer from such a measure. They ask that the residents of urban areas, where there is no hunting, make an effort to understand and respect their wishes to practice their favourite sports without being subjected to a thousand and one controls by officials.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to this House on behalf of all sportsmen and hunters. I ask hon. members of all parties to forget their party differences and vote against this bill which, in my estimation, will not contribute in any way to the protection of honest citizens.
Our fellow citizens are following with great interest the debate on this bill and I can assure hon. members who vote for gun controls that they will have to give accounts of their conduct in this regard. I shall be pleased to let their electors know they voted for this bill and constituents will take note of their vote.
Their constituents will not forgive them for that vote, which will penalize the sportsmen and the hunters of their regions. Mr. Speaker, government members are embarrassed at having to support such a bill. They know their voters, particularly those who represent rural constituencies, will not forgive them for supporting a bill which will oblige people to register their firearms, to wait for hours in civil servants' offices, while inspectors will check their past record to determine whether they can get a licence for their rifle or shotgun.
It is not without reason, Mr. Speaker, that many government members have tried to interrupt my speech on March 11, by making noise and putting non identifiable questions. They know I am speaking the truth and I am talking on behalf of the majority of Canadians.
Controlling firearms is not a good means of reducing crime. Let us take for instance Switzerland. In that country, all adult citizens must keep a firearm, it is provided by law. Yet that country's crime rate as regards qualified thefts and homicides is very low. Still, far from controlling firearms, Switzerland requires its citizens to possess guns and rifles.
In England, on the contrary, where gun control laws have been very tough for more than 50 years, a study conducted by Inspector Colin Greenwood of the British police force indicated that gun control did not help reduc-
Measures Against Crime
ing the number of crimes involving firearms. As a matter of fact, statistics show that the violent crime rate has increased by 400 per cent since 1963 in England, gun controls notwithstanding.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that such controls will not help reduce the number of violent crimes. This has been proven. The countries where there are no gun controls have very low crime rates, whereas the countries enforcing strict controls suffer increasing crime rates.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring forward one last argument at this point in the discussion, that is the excessive cost of this control for Canadian taxpayers. An army of public servants will be needed to register all firearms. Tons of paper will be needed to keep up to date the necessary files. Hundreds of public servants will also be needed to check whether people do have their permit and whether this permit is in fact valid. The government is now suggesting that we have to tighten our belt, and that it will reduce its own expenses. It has even announced the discontinuance of several programs aimed at helping students, old people and the unemployed to take part in useful projects.
Now he is asking us to let him spend millions to set up a program as ridiculous and as useless as gun control. If the government wishes to be consistent, it must revise its position and be aware of the fact that there is an obvious discrepancy between the stated view that government expenses will be curbed and this expensive gun control bill.
In closing, I would like to remind the House that a cabinet minister recently told Canadians that they should give up their usual life style. That minister may be right. One of the habits people ought to get rid of, and I hope for ever, is that of electing a Liberal government in Ottawa.
If the government puts forward more legislation like the gun control bill, it can be sure that Canadians will be cured of the habit they had to vote liberal.


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) in support of the amendment in the name of my hon. friend from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) asking that the bill be not now read a second time but that its subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for study.
I should like to preface my remarks on Bill C-83 by making reference to a letter written by Mr. Vair, chairman of the Alberta Fish and Game Association. This letter was sent to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and to every member of the House and the Senate. I refer to this letter for one reason only, that is, to draw attention to the arrogance of the government. It will not be necessary for me to read Mr. Vair's letter because all members of the House have received a copy. But I think I ought to bring to the attention of this House the kind of letter which was written to my constituent, Mr. Vair, who, incidentally, represents 23,000 sportsmen. The letter is dated March 3, 1976. It starts out with the words "Mr. Vair", not "Dear Sir" or "Dear Mr. Vair". The letter goes on to say:
Your letter and bumper sticker have reached my office. The impression you intend to leave with the public that guns will be outlawed is

March 30, 1976
Measures Against Crime
the kind of narrow, distorted extremism which spreads nothing but confusion and hatred. Have you nothing better to offer as a positive contribution, or do you know what the word means?


An hon. Member:: What a politician.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: I do not intend to reveal the name of the member who had the nerve to write such a letter. I would have hoped, however, that he would have learned by now that, regardless of political affiliation, it is incumbent to act in a manner becoming a member of parliament.
Bill C-83 embodies proposals to screen out potential misuse of guns and restrict the general availability of firearms. Some of the changes in, and additions to, the provisions of the offensive weapons section of the Criminal Code are as follows: The addition of a licensing system to apply to all persons who possess or propose to acquire firearms or ammunition, other than persons under the age of 18 and those who would be subject to special temporary permit provisions. A general strengthening of the offence provisions relating to the importation, possession, carriage, handling, storage, transfer and use of firearms and other offensive weapons and of related search and seizure provisions. Strengthening and extension of the permit provisions applicable to businesses which deal in firearms or ammunition and strengthening of the registration certificate provisions in relation to restricted weapons.
If this bill is passed, applicants for restricted weapons will in future be required to justify the need for such weapons before a certificate is granted. Police will be able to seize a weapon without a warrant in cases where there is reason to fear danger to human safety. Every possessor of a firearm will require a licence, good for five years. Such a licence will be issued only after the licensing officer finds there is nothing in the applicant's background to make him unfit to bear a weapon. Persons under 18 will require special permits issued only for target practice, game hunting and firearms instructions. One of the guarantors must be a parent or legal guardian. All firearms and ammunition dealers, traders and importers and manufacturers will be required to obtain permits and keep records of all their transactions.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now review our present gun laws with the object of showing they already meet our needs adequately. The Criminal Code lays down the law concerning the use of firearms. Weapons are defined under three categories-prohibited, restricted and unrestricted. Prohibited weapons include certain instruments used in selfdefence sports. Also prohibited are silencers, grenades and explosive-filled bottles and canisters, along with weapons that discharge gas, mace or any liquid or spray capable of incapacitating a person.
Restricted weapons include all manner of pistols and hand-guns-basically any weapon that can normally be aimed and fired by the action of one hand-and any firearm that is less than 26 inches in length or that can be adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 26 inches by folding or telescoping. Restricted, also, are automatic weapons.
There are at present a number of methods of regulating restricted firearms. Firstly, with regard to criminal penal-

ties for illegal use, in common with all firearms there are sections of the code attaching a penalty to their improper use. For example, it is an offence to possess any firearm "for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence", to use the words of section 83, or while attending or on the way to attend a public meeting-section 84-or to point at another person a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, as per section 86. Secondly, with regard to prohibiting possession of firearms, another provision applicable to all firearms is section 95 of the code which allows the court to prohibit any person convicted of an offence involving a firearm from possessing a firearm for up to five years. Thirdly, all restricted weapons must be registered. This means that the RCMP commissioner keeps a central registry of all restricted weapons. That provision is made in sections 98 and 99. The commissioner operates through local registrars who, according to the code, have no authority to refuse registration unless there is no serial number on the gun.
The discretion to refuse registration is, in law, exercised only by the commissioner who may refuse to issue a registration certificate where he has notice of any matter that may render it desirable in the interests of the safety of other persons that the applicant should not possess a restricted weapon. This provision is to be found in section 99(4). In practice, however, some local registrars refuse to register an applicant's weapon. Moreover, the techniques of registration also vary across the country; for example, in one city a fee is required.
The mechanics of registration are, in the typical case, as follows. Firstly, a hand-gun is selected at a sporting goods store. Secondly, the would-be purchaser goes to the local registrar of firearms and applies for a registration certificate and a special permit to bring the gun to the local registrar. Thirdly, the purchaser then goes back to the store with the permit and returns to the local registrar with the gun. Fourthly, the local registrar then causes inquiries to be made into the character of the applicant. The gun is often kept by the registrar during this period. Fifthly, the registration application is then sent to the RCMP commissioner with any recommendations from the local registrar. Sixthly, if the commissioner issues a certificate after further checks by the RCMP-the RCMP checks on whether he has a criminal record, whether there is an order of prohibition against him and whether the gun has been stolen-the owner of the gun returns to the local registrar to pick up his gun, if the gun has been held there.
Registration certificates are granted to anyone who wishes to have a hand-gun in his home or business unless, as previously pointed out, the commissioner knows that it is "desirable in the interests of the safety of other persons that the applicant should not possess a restricted weapon". Subject to this condition, a person can keep a hand-gun at home if he wants it for protection, or because he is a collector or is simply starting a collection.
Permits to carry restricted weapons outside the home are much more carefully regulated. Here, the local registrar, assuming he is the person authorized to perform this function under section 97(1) of the code, has discretion to refuse to issue a permit. The section says "may be issued". No appeal can be taken from a refusal to grant such a permit, although an appeal to a magistrate can be taken if
March 30, 1976

a permit is revoked or if a registration certificate is not granted, as set out in section 99(6). The registrar will, of course, consider the character of the applicant. The registrar must also be satisfied, under section 97(2), that the applicant requires the restricted weapon for one of four stated purposes: to protect life or property; for use in connection with his lawful profession or occupation; for use in target practice under the auspices of a shooting club approved by the attorney general; or for use in target practise in accordance with the conditions attached to the permit. The practice varies from province to province. For example, some provinces make it very difficult to obtain a permit to carry a hand-gun "to protect life or property''; others are less restrictive.
A permit is needed to sell, repair or take in pawn a restricted weapon. Again, discretion is given to the registrar to refuse to issue a permit, as provided in sections 97(4) and 99(3), if he "has notice of any matter that may render it desirable in the interests of the safety of other persons that such a permit should not be issued to the applicant". In this case, if a permit is refused an appeal can be taken to a magistrate. Unrestricted weapons refer to all shotguns and rifles of a kind commonly used for hunting or sporting purposes. Neither registration certificate nor permits are required for these weapons, although a provincial licence is necessary in order to hunt game.
The aim of more gun control as advocated by the government and certain groups is to make Canada a better place to live in by reducing the violent crime rate. In this regard, the following extract from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police position paper on gun control is interesting to note:
Few authorities will dispute the statement that crime with violence is generally on the increase virtually throughout the world. Such crime with violence is identified with the use of explosives and weapons of all kinds, particularly firearms. For this reason, governments and individuals have shown increased interest in the control of firearms as one remedial measure probably because reported crime frequently associates the use of firearms.
What is identified today as being "the problem" is the number of violent crimes that are being committed and with which wrongly or rightly a firearm is being identified. There is no doubt that revolvers, pistols, "sawed-off" shotguns and "Saturday night specials" as well as any other kind of firearm imaginable have been involved in the commission of violent crime. The traditional sporting rifle whether suitable for high-powered shell or shot has also been involved. It must not be forgotten that violent crime is also committed with stilettos, butcher knives, chains, hammers and lead pipes, to name but a few other instruments.
The problem at hand is the high incidence of crime and the search for the methods of reducing it. If this can be achieved by the elimination of a weapon from the market then so much the better but this approach can be discarded from the very beginning because violent crime can be committed with any number of weapons.
Any restriction or control of firearms may in effect lessen the safeguards of society.
It is claimed that registration, control, prohibiting the sale of firearms or, as a most drastic step, stopping the manufacturing thereof would prove to be a safeguard to society. In the first instance a good proportion of legitimate users would be deprived of a rather enjoyable pastime: secondly, the firearms manufacturing industry would suffer considerably and the armed forces as well as security services would have to establish other means of procuring weapons in any case; thirdly, the highly desirable training facilities for the younger element, which facilities are yet grossly underdeveloped, would be eliminated thereby depriving society of a potential reserve of qualified marksmen.
Measures Against Crime
The strongest support of this point can be found in Switzerland where is no restrictive legislation whatever to curb the general use of firearms of any kind. In no country of Europe is the use of firearms more common and general. Every able bodied adult male is required by law to possess and know how to use military rifles. In addition, he may own as many pistols as he likes. In no country of the world is rifle and pistol shooting more universally indulged in by all classes of people. In spite of all these facts in no country in Europe, with the possible exception of England, are crimes of violence so rare as they are in Switzerland. This fact must give pause to the advocates of pistol prohibition as a crime preventive. Inanimate objects such as pistols, knives, axes or clubs do not and cannot cause crime. They do not and they cannot supply the motive or the impulse. The causes of crime must be sought elsewhere, in greed, hatred, jealousy and general moral depravity-and the remedy- if there any be, is more likely to be found in morals and education in improved police methods of detection, and in the more prompt and certain imposition of punishment. This is safeguarding society.
Although gun control proposals pretend to be directed toward the laudatory objective of reducing the incidence of violent crime, they tend in fact to aggravate the very conditions fostering crime by diverting attention away from the dismal failure of the criminal justice system to adequately cope with criminality. In point of fact, as a society we have simply failed to provide an efficient means whereby criminals can be apprehended, speedily prosecuted, reliably convicted, jailed and kept in jail.
The glaring failure of gun control laws significantly to affect the criminal element, as well as the reasons therefor, can be graphically portrayed by examining the experience of the city of Chicago. It has been estimated that there are presently some 20,000 gun laws in the United States, a number of which are operational in Chicago. The national federal firearms acts were on the federal books since their enactment in the 1930s, and the federal gun control act of 1968 eliminated interstate mail order sales of guns. Since 1968, Illinois has required a licence to purchase or possess either firearms or ammunition; additionally, Chicago residents have been required to register with the city authorities every firearm they own.
In 1965, before there was either a city registration ordinance of a state licensing law, 395 persons were murdered in Chicago. In 1973, five years after the enactment of those two new laws to "control guns", a record number of 864 persons were murdered in Chicago, and 1974 recorded nearly 1,000 murders. Anti-gun proposals are based on the faulty assumption that the increased sale of firearms in recent years constitutes, in and of itself, a basic cause of crime, when it would be far more rational to conclude that the sale of guns is to a significant degree merely an effect of the public's fear of rising crime.
The public has become increasingly alarmed and apprehensive over what it perceives as the open and notorious contempt shown by lawless elements, not only toward the law but toward the police and even the courts, all of which contributes toward the determination of law-abiding citizens to restore to themselves the means of doing that which they fear government either can no longer, or will no longer, do for them, namely, protect the safety and lives of their families as well as their property. Criminals will always manage to find guns. Stricter gun control laws may only provoke the existence of a black market for guns used for criminal ends.
The views of generally decent and law-abiding citizens are easy to describe. People have the right to bear arms for pleasure and self-protection, without interference from big

March 30, 1976
Measures Against Crime
government. Criminals will get guns, despite gun control laws. All gun control proposals-whether they advocate registration, licensing, record-keeping or anything else- are undesirable because they will inevitably lead to other, more restrictive measures.
As we have noted, Canada does have sufficient legislation already in existence to regulate legitimate firearms' use and traffic, and the police have interpreted and enforced the laws in a manner consistent with the attitude of the Canadian public. Because of the discretion of the police forces, relatively few Canadians are actually aware of the comprehensive manner in which firearms' usage has already been legislated. The present system regarding restricted weapons appears to be working reasonably well. Most police forces conduct a careful examination of the applicant before forwarding a recommendation to the RCMP for a registration certificate. The RCMP themselves make a routine check. Moreover, many local registrars tend to make it difficult for a person to obtain a permit to carry a hand-gun unless he is a bona fide target-shooter. The very fact that relatively few hand-guns are used in crimes in Canada, in comparison with their use in the United States, is some indication of the effectiveness of the system. The number of hand-guns in Canada is still relatively low.
Since we in Canada already have so many laws governing the use of offensive weapons, one must be reminded that no matter what possible strategy for control may be suggested, any further registration would require a considerable increase to an already overburdened administrative structure and would further tax the capabilities of police forces and the judicial system. Thus, it is emphasized in the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police position paper on gun control laws that if there is to be any further legislation instituted for restricting the use of firearms even more than presently exists in Canada, its administration must be given first consideration, and if it be found that it cannot properly be administered, then it is far better to remain with the legislation that presently exists.
What effect would this compulsory licensing system have, for all persons who possess or propose to acquire firearms or ammunition, in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals? The effect would be so insignificant that it would not begin to compensate for the expenditure of police time. Furthermore, good citizens, hunters, farmers, trappers and competitive marksmen would be forced to comply with an irritating, time-consuming and useless regulation.
It is contended by some that registration of rifles and shotguns, and the application of a permit system, would reduce certain types of manslaughter or murder such as those arising from domestic quarrels, property disputes and the onset of insanity. But it should be pointed out that people involved in such killings are usually those who have not been looked upon or recorded as criminals. They would have had no trouble in registering their firearms and securing permits to carry them.
In conclusion, the questions surrounding firearms and the correlation of violence are extremely complicated and often ambiguous. The available literature on the subject

indicates that research results often have been conveniently misinterpreted to suit the needs of those holding opposing points of view. The relationship between firearms and violence, however, does tend to obscure two other important facts bearing on the firearms question. First, it must be recognized that the vast majority of gun owners recognize the desirability of the proper use of firearms. It is indicated in the literature that most gun owners are law-abiding sportsmen and exemplary citizens who deplore the criminal use of firearms; and this being the case, their needs must sensitively be taken into account. Second, one must never lose sight of the fact that the root causes of violence may well go much deeper than mere widespread gun ownership. It must be recognized that firearms merely facilitate, rather than cause, some forms of violence.


Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on a very important government bill, Bill C-83, to introduce the Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 1), 1976. This is an important bill because it is a law bill, specifically the criminal law, and it affects matters of a highly emotional nature. In fact, this is precisely what is wrong with some of these amendments- they are long on emotion, but short on logic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Paul Masniuk: This afternoon I would like to give some of my observations on the amendments in the bill which deal with gun control. It is interesting and revealing that the major portion of this bill is actually called "gun control." The government literature on this legislation calls it "gun control." I think that reveals a great deal of the government's real intentions on this subject. Maybe "gun control" sounds better than "people control", which is what this bill is really about. But it is odd that the advocates of gun control of one sort or another hardly ever talk about crime control or criminal control. This bill and this debate is really about gun control, even though the government has tried to pretend that it is about measures to protect society from crime. The gun control provisions make up 39 of the bill's 73 pages and actually constitute a new gun control law. Therefore, I am gcing to talk about gun control for a few minutes.
The fact is that Canada has some of the toughest gun control laws of any country in the world for certain categories of firearms. Nor are they new. Gun registration was introduced in Canada in 1935. The notorious hand-gun is a restricted weapon in this country and it is difficult to imagine how it could be any more controlled. A hand-gun must first be registered with the RCMP. This registration is not automatic, and can be refused. To remove the gun from the place of purchase, the owner must next obtain a "convenience permit" which only authorizes him to transport the gun to his home or the place of business for which the gun is registered. To transport the gun, again he must be issued with a "carrying permit" which will only be issued under strict provisions such as that the gun is necessary to protect life and property, that its use is in connection with the applicant's lawful profession or occupation, that it will be used on the premises of an approved shooting club, or that it will be used for target practise in accordance with the conditions attached to the permit.
March 30, 1976

These types of provisions governing certain restricted weapons, including hand-guns, were written into our Criminal Code over 40 years ago. At that time, so we are told, those who instituted this program had high hopes, although it is not exactly clear just what the hopes were for. Maybe they were negative hopes. Maybe they hoped that these controls would prevent the emergence of a Canadian John Dillinger or Ma Barker; I do not know.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Measures to ensure adequate supply of swine flu vaccine- Consultations with provincial ministers; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Agriculture- Proposed elimination of transport subsidy on flour to east coast ports-Alleged conflict in minister's statements; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Request for more local programming-Government action.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to consideration of government order No. 92.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: that Bill C-92, to provide for compensation for former prisoners of war and their dependants and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable pleasure that I speak today on a bill designed to improve the lot of those members of the armed forces and certain civilians who were unfortunate enough to have been prisoners of war during and after World War II. All members of this House agree that Canada owes a debt of gratitude to those men and women who answered the call and served so
Veterans Affairs
gallantly for the preservation of our freedom. We are all agreed that Canada has some of the world's most advanced veterans' legislation. I consider it a privilege, and it gives me great personal satisfaction, to speak to this bill which puts Canada in the forefront in providing compensation to former prisoners of war.
Hon. members will remember that in 1971 the Pension Act was amended to provide special benefits of the equivalent of a minimum of 50 per cent pension to former prisoners of war of the Japanese because of the long-term aftereffects which they suffered as a result of their imprisonment. Prisoners of war of European powers in World War II also suffered indignities and maltreatment and many of them have residual disabilities which cannot be recognized or identified. A study was made by Dr. J. D. Hermann and he reported on the deleterious effects of prisoner of war incarceration. His report, in turn, was studied by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which was unanimous in its recommendations to this House.
The bill as put forward will adopt, almost in their entirety, the recommendations of the standing committee related to prisoners of war. Hon. members will be glad to know that the principles of this bill have been discussed with veterans' organizations and that they support it fully. The basic principles of the bill provide that former prisoners of war of the Japanese who were captives for one year or more will receive compensation equivalent to a 50 per cent disability pension and that they will receive any disability pension to which they may be entitled, as well, to a combined maximum of the equivalent of a 100 per cent pension. For those who were incarcerated from three months to one year, the rate of compensation will be the equivalent of a 20 per cent pension.
It is recognized that the current problems of former prisoners of war of the Japanese are worse than those of other prisoners of war. It is for this reason that the recommended compensation for those who were captured by other powers during or after World War II is on a sliding scale related to the length of time of incarceration. On this basis, the men captured at Dieppe would be compensated at the next highest amount. The bill establishes the following rates for these groups: in captivity for 3 months to 18 months, 10 per cent; 18 months to 30 months, 15 per cent; over 30 months, 20 per cent. Like the others, this compensation will also be added to any disability pension payable, subject to a ceiling equivalent to a 100 per cent pension.
The legislation provides that in the case of death, compensation will be available to dependants on the same basis as under the Pension Act. For example, if the combined compensation and disability pension totals 48 per cent or more, widow's pension would be payable and other dependants benefits would be available.
I must point out that prisoner of war experience does not relate to any other civilized kind of incarceration. It is a mixture of inadequate food, exposure, disease, physical abuse and emotional torment. In some instances it entailed being shackled for long periods, having to undergo forced marches and being forced to suffer personal indignities. The relative intensities vary from man to man and time to time, but it is impossible to separate any one aspect of this complex indignity and experience from the whole.

March 30,1976
Veterans Affairs
I am sure that the measures proposed in this bill will be welcomed by every hon. member of this House as further evidence of Canada's awareness of the special contribution made by our veterans to their country. I also want to pay special tribute to all those who have been involved in the studies which led to this bill: the veterans' organizations, Dr. J. B. Hermann, the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, other hon. members of this House, officials of the Canada Pension Commission and of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I am very pleased today to have this opportunity to respond to the many interested requests which I have received from former prisoners of war, both of Hong Kong and other powers, and also veterans' organizations and many members of parliament, on their behalf, with the interest at heart of those who served.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, naturally, it is with great pleasure that we have an opportunity today to debate second reading of Bill C-92 which has been introduced into the House. It was given first reading yesterday, March 29, and we certainly welcome it. We welcome it because of the long delay which occurred before the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs could be put into legislative form. There were questions on points of order and questions to the minister dating back, I suppose, to October of 1975 by hon. members on all sides but by opposition members particularly, and more particularly by the hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and myself who bear the responsibility of veterans' legislation for the official opposition, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as we all continued to press for an early introduction of this bill and to have it printed so that we would know at least what we were talking about. Prior to the introduction of this bill the minister made a statement a few weeks ago indicating that the legislation was ready and would be introduced soon. The word "soon" became a bit of a headache over the weeks and months, and that is why I say we welcomed the introduction of this bill yesterday.
In fairness, I suppose I should say that hon. members on the government side who are veterans were equally concerned about this, but they just did not have the opportunity to express themselves, perhaps, with the same freedom that we have. Perhaps that is the reason they should move across to this side of the House, so they can have greater freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William David Knowles: From the sound of it, I think we have some offers to come over. Today, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made an offer which the government-or at least the House leader- simply could not refuse, and that was to set aside private members' hour which was to be considering his topic and devote it to bringing in this bill. We have to give credit to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) for being prepared and willing to come forward at such short notice. We welcome his statement at the opening of this debate on second reading.

Perhaps it might be well just briefly to recapitulate what has gone on prior to today. To do that we must go back to Dr. Hermann's report which was studied by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in great detail. In addition to that, there were numerous witnesses representing veterans' organizations who appeared before the committee to give their views on how the Hermann report should be implemented and what they thought the legislation should contain. I refer to the Hong Kong Prisoners of War Association, the National Prisoners of War Association, the Dieppe Prisoners of War Association, the Royal Air Force Escaping Society-not to mention the legion, the army, the navy, the air force, and so on. The views and beliefs of all these people were invaluable in assisting the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in preparing a report to present to this House. Then, of course, there were the long sessions of the standing committee in an attempt to bring about a consensus as to what the government should bring forward. There were wide variations of opinion. Some wanted everything included; others, strict limitations with regard to the recommendations. We must give credit to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) who is present today and wants to speak to the bill. He was instrumental in bringing about the consensus which led to the report on which this legislation is based.
We must not forget the work done by the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs in bringing forward this legislation. They stood behind the minister and helped him to look good in committee and in the House. Some of them now sit in the gallery. We ought to pay tribute to them for their work in bringing forward this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: The minister
outlined the contents of the bill. It contains many provisions which the standing committee recommended ought to be included. The committee said that Hong Kong veterans ought to be treated more fairly. When last we gave them a 50 per cent across the board pension, we forgot to say that added to that pension should be any other permanent disability pension they might receive. That omission has been corrected.
I shall not mention in detail the sliding scale of benefits available to prisoners of war of European powers. These are based on the time of incarceration and benefits received are to be added to other disability pensions which the veteran might be in receipt of, up to the maximum of 100 per cent in the case of Hong Kong veterans.
The bill omits important recommendations. One concerns those who escaped from prisoner of war camps, evaded recapture and found their way back to the allied forces. The committee recommended that they should be included in the same category as that applying to prisoners of war of European powers. The government saw fit not to do that, for reasons which have been explained and accepted. In the not too distant future we should consider including this category.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in a previous debate said that the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) escaped from a prisoner of war camp. After
March 30, 1976

being shot down over Europe he was captured, then escaped and, using the European underground system, finally returned to the allied forces. His story is well documented in a book called "The Evaders". An entire chapter is devoted to the hon. member's exploits. He is particularly interested in that recommendation of the standing committee. For that reason we ought to keep it in mind.
The government also did not accept our recommendation suggesting that pensions should be paid to widows of veterans whose disability pensions were assessed at less than 48 per cent. The minister explained why that provision could not be included this time. We accepted his explanation in the all-party discussion of a few weeks ago. We know that it would entail the spending of several millions of dollars, money which the government claims it does not have at this time. If its priorities were different, I am sure that money could be found.
I will not infringe upon the time of others who want to speak on second reading. I said earlier that I want to expedite passage of this bill, and I know that colleagues on my side and hon. members opposite also want to speak on it. I commend the minister for finally bringing forward this bill. We all sincerely hope that it will receive early passage so that veterans will not have to wait long before receiving benefits.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although it has taken us a long time to reach this day, we are delighted that it is here at last.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The first word I wish to use in my brief comments is "unanimity". Hon. members have heard some of us ask many questions about this matter and have heard some of us pressing for this legislation to be brought down. But the real story behind it has been one of unanimity, particularly on the part of the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
A long time ago we requested an inquiry into the experience of Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war in Europe. That request led to the appointment of Dr. J. D. Hermann who was to undertake that task. When we made that request it was unanimous. Later, the Hong Kong veterans appeared before us and asked for certain improvements in their status. The committee supported their request and that decision was unanimous. Likewise, when the standing committee, on June 12, 1975, tabled the seventh report, which in part is now being implemented, that report was unanimous. As the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) said, that report was in the nature of a consensus: we compromised between two extremes. The unanimity of the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs provided the pressure which helped the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to get his cabinet colleagues to agree to the introduction of Bill C-92.
That unanimity was also shown when my colleague and namesake on this side of the House paid tribute to various veterans' organizations, those directly representing prisoners of war and others, for the part they played in this and when he thanked the deputy minister and other officials in
Veterans Affairs
the Department of Veterans Affairs, the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission and the other officials who worked with him for the work they did in drafting the legislation and bringing it before the House.
The second thing I want to say is this: I think the time has come to shorten speeches, or to eliminate them altogether, and pass the legislation. The minister and the previous speaker cut their speeches short. I shall keep mine brief as well. After all, it is almost 34 years since the raid on Dieppe. Those of us who come from Winnipeg well remember that day. Men we knew were involved in the raid. It is even longer than that since the Hong Kong experience, which included many men from my city. So let us not lengthen the time which survivors of Hong Kong or other prison camps in Europe must wait before getting the compensation they deserve. I hope that hon. members who will not get the opportunity to speak, especially members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, will feel that they have been spoken for by those taking part in this debate.
Like the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand, I regret that some things were not put in the bill. We had recommended that in the case of prisoners of war in Europe the lowest rate, 10 per cent, should apply to those who were prisoners for any period from one day to a year and a half. The provision in the bill before us starts at three months. In other words, the lowest rate will apply to incarceration for between three months and a year and a half. I am a little concerned about the numbers that may be cut off by that three months requirement, but we can deal with that later. I am also disappointed that the recommendation we made regarding escapees and evaders has not been included. However, if we get the legislation on the books and the case is a strong one for them to be included, perhaps later on we can get the government to bring in an amendment.
Also, I am disappointed that our very worth-while and, I thought, very humanitarian recommendation about widows is not in the bill. As the previous speaker pointed out, we asked that in the case of widows of veterans where the disability pension of the veteran was less than 48 per cent, a pro rata widow's pension should go to such widows. I understand the battle there was in cabinet to get this legislation through and we have to accept the bill as it is. However, I hope that after this is out of the way and the smoke of this battle has cleared, we can have another one to win yet a better provision for the widows of veterans where veterans' disability pensions were below 48 per cent.
Having indicated my disappointment that those things are not there, and my dedication to carry on the struggle to get them, that does not detract from my pleasure that this bill is now before us. It will mean a great deal to the Hong Kong veterans that the change that is in this bill is being made. Instead of getting just a 50 per cent basic and having that include any disability pensions that were less than that, they will now get the 50 per cent plus any assessable disability, except that there is a ceiling of 100 per cent. It will mean a great deal to them.
It will mean a great deal to Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war in Europe and have waited all these years for consideration to get even the amounts of compensation

March 30, 1976
Veterans Affairs
that are involved in this bill. When you add these percentages to the percentages that some of them may have for disabilities, there will be protection for widows that may not be there at the present time. As the bill and the schedule point out, we are making provision not only for widows but for children, dependents, and so on. This is a long overdue step. However, this is not the time to complain about the time that has been lost or to complain about the things that are not there. I am just glad that this bill is before us. Coming, as I do, from Winnipeg where we have many who were involved both at Hong Kong and Dieppe, I speak particularly for the people of my city in saying that we are glad this legislation has been brought in.
With all that I have had to say about this matter over the past many months, I certainly do not need to make the point that I could go on. I have already said that the time for speeches on this matter is over. The time has come to get the bill passed and to get it into effect. I am a little concerned that there is not a date in the bill. I had hoped there would be a reasonable period of retroactivity. The date is to be fixed by proclamation. I am afraid that means an effective date that is after the bill gets passed. Therefore, I would like to see the bill passed right now, today.


Léonel Beaudoin: Just a few words, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) for having introduced Bill C-92 now before the House, at the express request of several government members, and of course, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I congratulate the minister who has obtained quite a few things for the Hong Kong veterans and Dieppe prisoners. I am sure that my brother, who disappeared at Dieppe in August of 1942 and who saw several married fellow-soldiers fall at his side, if he can hear me now, will be happy to hear-though it did take a long time-such a good ending.
However one thing worries me in this bill. I know the committee members did their share, everything they could, as well as the government, to achieve a reasonable objective. But, once again, one thing troubles me: I would like to see the amounts given on pages 7 and 8 indexed on the cost of living. If the cost of living increases-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, they are in the main bill.


Léonel Beaudoin: They are. I am sorry. I was not a member of this committee but if they are indexed, it means that the long nurtured dream of these families has been fulfilled, in particular these widowed women and these men who, as the minister said earlier, lost most of their joy of living after a 24, 30 or 35 months confinement.
Finally I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in particular whom I heard at each meeting of the House leaders to which I had the honour to assist. He never missed a single opportunity to push for introduction of this bill. This is a concrete example of the concerted action of the opposition parties with the party in

power do something in favour of veterans and of the people for whom life had hardly any meaning. I think this is all to the credit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and of the minister.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this a great day for parliament. It is one of the days when politicians of whatever political stripe can be proud of the fact that they are members of the House of Commons, and to indicate that when the chips are down and there is something well deserved we can all work together without any friction.
I do not wish to single out too many people. However, I think it is appropriate to say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) that we all feel this legislation is long overdue and we are particularly proud that at this time of restraint he was able to overcome even that. This is one battle that is not going to be fought on the backs of the veterans as the minister has brought forward a piece of legislation that is long overdue. Most assuredly, it is needed.
On the other side of the House, I had the pleasure of serving with many of the members of the veterans affairs committee. In particular I think of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), of course the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard). We all worked together to find a compromise, a solution. We would have all liked more. We would like to have seen a lot of things happen with this particular bill. We worked together in an in-camera session. We were able to resolve this matter to the satisfaction of the Dieppe prisoners of war, the Hong Kong veterans, the Legion and other organizations which made representations before us.
It may be necessary for Mr. John Mellor to change the title of his book "The Forgotten Heroes". That book spells out, probably as clearly and precisely as possible, the difficulties faced by the prisoners of war in Europe. I do not think I have read a better book. I read "The Shame and the Glory". It probably has more length and more individual statistics, but in so far as putting it all together, I think Mr. Mellor in his book "The Forgotten Heroes" has told the story very graphically.
There is one other thing I should like to say. It comes out of the book and is one of the things about Dieppe veterans. When the men were taken prisoner they were put in railway cars and moved inland in France. They had just come out of the shock of the terrible tragedy of Dieppe and were herded into these railway cars and taken long distances without any food. Finally, they were given some very meagre rations.
The Vichy French, for whatever reason, thought they could alienate the French Canadians from the English Canadians by offering additional food and benefits to the French Canadians. To Canada's eternal pride, the French-Canadians said, "We are one as Canadians, and that is why we fight". And they shared the additional food which was given them by the Vichy French. There was no question then of French and English being divided. They set a standard then and I believe that we, in peacetime, should
March 30, 1976

look back and remember what the French-Canadians were telling the Vichy French at that time.
It is a real honour and pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I know there are others who would like to speak, and that there are some who are not here today but who would like to speak on this bill. This is an effort of the House of Commons, not of any political party.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I need not add many words to what has already been said this afternoon. I would only commend the minister and his staff, all the service organizations, and all members of the veterans affairs committee.
This bill will help those who are on partial pensions, those who may be in receipt of war veterans allowances through pre-aging; it will give them a few additional dollars to help compensate for the increasing cost of living.
There are only two or three points I wish to make now because of my interest in allowing others to take part in the debate. One concerns the clarification of compensation and pension arrangements. This is a subject to which we ought to address ourselves in committee. Suppose a war veterans is in receipt of war veterans allowance and will qualify for 10 or 15 per cent. How will that affect his war veterans allowance? There is nothing in the bill to say that it will not affect the allowance and therefore the extra money might be of no benefit to a WVA recipient who is already getting the maximum.
Second, take the case of veteran who is over 65 and who is in receipt of GIS. If he qualifies, will the compensation affect his GIS? Again this is a point to which we might well address ourselves in committee.
One of the good features, and this may have been overlooked, concerns the 48 per cent maximum for qualifying for widow's allowance. If the compensation is included, if the disability pensioner, for example, is getting 40 per cent and gets 20 per cent compensation it will bring him up over the 48 per cent line so his widow would indeed benefit.
As the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have pointed out, it is too bad that escapees were not included. It is obvious from the experience of those who escaped that in some cases they suffered more than those who were incarcerated in prisoner-of-war camps.
In closing I would once again commend the minister. He keeps us in suspense a lot but he always comes through in the end. I should congratulate him, his officials who do the detailed work, and all the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have reserved to myself, I trust, possibly the last word other than those of the minister in reply. First of all, as I have indicated in the past, I have an interest in this legislation. It is possible I am the only one in this Chamber who has a personal and direct interest in it and for that reason, of course, I have had to lie back at times and let others get to the forefront on this particular issue.
Veterans Affairs
I recall private legislation going back eight or ten years, trying to get ministers of veterans affairs subsequent to myself-predecessors of the present minister-to look at this situation and bring the men in for treatment. It was not so much that I was interested in monetary compensation as it was to get the men in and study the effects of what everyone has been speaking of, but from a medical point of view. There would have been many other benefits. I did not think solely of my confreres in the prison camps whether of Dieppe vintage or whether of longer-term Navy or Air Force personnel; I was considering primarily the non-Hong Kong or non-Japanese prisoners of war.
I was not happy about the settlement reached with regard to the Hong Kong prisoners. There is one fundamental point which has been lost sight of, as is evident from the restrictions in the bill before us, and it is that we have since the first world war granted war disability pensions up to 100 per cent in compensation for war wounds or injuries arising out of war service. It is inviolate, not subject to tax, not assignable, not attachable. In certain cases survivor benefits accompany it.
As far as Hong Kong people are concerned, unfortunately there was the 50 per cent ceiling put on which mingled both disability and compensation for the privation they had suffered. It was unfortunate it was done that way, and I believe it was right of the departmental officials on this occasion to insist that the question of POW compensation be taken out of the service disability legislation entirely and that it be recognized as POW compensation. I must say, though, I find it disappointing, even though I realize and speak with gratitude on the part of thousands of my colleagues who were prisoners of war that this action should now be taken. But I do find that having recognized the injustice, the inequities which were imposed on Hong Kong prisoners of war who were really entitled to between 75 per cent and 80 per cent disability pensions, they were cut by the 50 per cent or else they gave up the 50 per cent.
If they were in receipt of a disability pension in excess of 50 per cent there was no compensation for the Hong Kong veterans category. That is a matter of fact and that was where the rub came. I know some prisoners of war who are 90 and 100 per cent pensionable. They made the sacrifice and the country gratefully granted them this disability pension. Now, when we go on the other side and deal under another heading entirely with prisoner of war compensations, this legislation unfortunately tells those men that if they have, both in the Hong Kong category and in the non-Japanese POW category, a disability pension of over 50 per cent their compensation is going to suffer and that if their compensation were upgraded as a result of a re-board in future their compensation will go down. This is because the limit under the act is 100 per cent.
I have spoken to the minister privately about this, and in committee I hope we can agree that the continuation of this inequity should be removed. There is one head of compensation. There is another head of disability benefit. Surely we are not going to continue this inequity to the bitter end. No man will get in excess of a 100 per cent disability pension. He will get a 100 per cent disability pension if he is entitled to it; he will then get, in addition, compensation for being a prisoner of war.

March 30, 1976
Veterans Affairs
There are other provisions of the act which I think could stand some improvement. However, on behalf of those from Hamilton, Toronto, Windsor, Montreal, Winnipeg, Weyburn, Calgary, Red Deer, Stettler, which I think are the principal areas the troops who took part in the Dieppe raid came from, including prisoners of war who died, such as Sandy Shusterman, who was, shall I say, the moving spirit or founder of the Dieppe Prisoners and Veterans Association, as well as many others who pioneered outside of parliament a strong movement that has culminated in this measure, I say thank you to the government and thank you to members of the House. Naturally they have said thank you many times to the members of the veterans affairs committee.
While attending last year's national conference of prisoners of war in Red Deer I had expressed to me, by all prisoners of war and their dependants who were there, their heartfelt thanks for this consideration that was being given and which hopefully will now come their way.
I also hope that the provision that this legislation shall come into force on a date to be proclaimed is not just a matter of deferral. I would have thought that a generous gesture to these men would be to make it retroactive to the date on which the minister made his announcement that the government had accepted the principle of this measure and that preparation of legislation was going forward. That was the date of the cabinet's decision and it was the date the minister made the announcement. To me, it is only fair under the circumstances to have the legislation made effective from that date.
I note that there is the question of a supplementary estimate or something like that, but why do we always have to look at administrative convenience if we want to make things tidy from the bookkeeping point of view? We are dealing with compensation paid to men, and perhaps to women too who were prisoners of war since the measure will apply to civilian war prisoners. Yet we clutter up our gratitude by bureaucratic tidiness. It would have been far better for the minister and all of us had this legislation been effective from the date of the announcement of this favourable decision that has been taken by the cabinet.
I also regret that there could not be included those who are called escapers. They too went through very trying times, possibly more difficult than others who were prisoners of war. It is hard to measure the relative degree of suffering and privation they endured. Monetary compensation is a very poor measure, but it is the best we can give those who managed to survive, both prisoners of the Japanese, and others. Looking at them today, Mr. Speaker, you wonder how on earth they could ever have been prisoners of war and have suffered any privation at all.
On the other hand, there are people living in Canada, men and women, who went through the horrors of Dachau, Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Some came out from there less than skin and bone and today are not the same people. You would hardly believe that they could have gone through such privation and cruelty, and yet survive. They managed to keep their minds, and apparently that is the best thing.
It may be said of some that they may get stout. They may round out. But so long as they do not get fat between the ears, that is what counts. I hope that this House will not be too fat between the ears and will compensate these people justly, and that the minister will accept some of the kindly suggestions made by various members in their comments on this bill.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want at this stage to be accused of trying to kill the bill. I only want to offer my best wishes to the members of the committee; among all the House committees on which I sat, this is one of the most interesting because there is not political partisanship. All parties cooperate in order that veterans be better understood and protected by the government.
I also want to congratulate the members of all parties sitting on the Committee on Veterans Affairs for their devotion and their willingness in discussing the veterans' problems and I would also thank the various associations which submitted briefs. There is also the department officials from Ottawa and Montreal with whom I discuss veterans' problems from time to time. I wish to thank them for their comprehension and their diligence in discussing and understanding the problems put forward. On befalf of the veterans, I would like to thank them and assure them of my devotion.
I would like to mention what happened to me last spring when I had the opportunity to visit the cemetery in Hong Kong. The brother of a friend of mine lies buried there. I visited the burial grounds and can vouch that it is impeccably maintained. I was with a colleague and I was astounded on seeing how beautifully cared for that place is. I spoke, with the help of our guide who acted as interpreter, to one of the maintenance staff. He was very dedicated to his task, it is almost a vocation which urges him to work in the cemetery. I took a snap of the grave stone of my friend's brother.
To all of you, hon. members of this House and departmental members, I offer my thanks and I am sure everyone will cooperate-there is no doubt about that in my mind- so that this legislation may be passed as quickly as possible for the benefit of our returned soldiers.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have had very little time to peruse this bill, but I pretty well know what it contains and I want to say a few words about its effect or lack of effect on a certain group of ex-servicemen.
Generally speaking, in Canada and in most western countries we go to a great deal of national expense to see that justice is not only done but appears to be done, even in individual cases. We have a very elaborate and expensive system of justice.
I know of several cases regarding a governmental attitude where bureaucrats look at things in the bureaucratic way, with the result that very rough justice is done. They take the attitude that if there are only a few exceptions to the general rule, or relatively few that do not fit into the

March 30, 1976

general pattern, there must be some very exceptional circumstances before they can be accommodated.
The few I am talking about in relation to this bill are those people who, in some cases because of luck, or their own efforts, succeeded in avoiding capture and becoming prisoners of war. More important still is that small group who were prisoners of war for a period of time and escaped and made their way back to allied territory. I do not know what the number is of those who served in the navy or the army of Canada, but those who served in the air force and escaped successfully number perhaps 150 or 200 at the outside. They are the exceptions, and are not covered by this bill. They should be covered, and I hope when the bill goes to the committee this matter will be looked into with the possibility of amending the definition of a former prisoner of war to include those who had been prisoners of war, escaped, and were in enemy territory on occasion for long periods of time.
I have a friend who was in the RCAF, was shot down, was captured, and became a prisoner of war. He escaped three times from prisoner of war camps. The third time he avoided recapture. The only way he could do this was to move to the east. He eventually arrived in Poland and commenced fighting with the Polish underground, and continued to do so for some two years. As I read this bill he would not qualify unless he was a prisoner of war for a certain length of time before his escape.
There are many others who were never prisoners of war for very long but escaped and avoided recapture. Many were shot down and were never captured. They were in enemy occupied countries for long periods of time under very difficult conditions, and at very high risk to themselves and to the people helping them. They were often living under very bad conditions when food was minimal. That period of their service is a complete blank as far as their medical documents are concerned.
Some of these individuals were wounded, injured, and stayed with friends in the underground or members of escape organizations, or perhaps with just individuals on whose mercy they had thrown themselves. At very great risk they were nursed back to a sufficient level of health so that they were able to move on.
It is very unreasonable to exclude this small group of people. I do not know how many there would be in all services, but perhaps 500 at the most. In this situation these exceptions should be taken care of by this legislation. They should have been treated in the same way as others who had the misfortune to be prisoners until the end of the war.
After all, as everybody who served in the service is aware, one of your obligations was to try to escape if taken prisoner. That was one of your obligations and duties. We now have a situation in which a fellow is disqualified because he was able to fulfil that duty by escaping successfully, at great risk to himself, and in some cases after months making it back to allied territory to serve again. To me this borders on the outrageous. The very least that can be said about it is that it is an injustice. The only reason I know of that they are not included is that they represent an awkward exception to the general rule. They do not fit conveniently into the category of those who were made prisoner of war and remained so until the war was over.
Royal Assent
I see it is six o'clock. That is all I wanted to say on this bill now, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier today the government House leader said that if Bill C-92 were not concluded by six o'clock it would be called again during government time on Thursday. Would he tell us now whether it will be the first item of business on Thursday?


Mitchell William Sharp: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would not call any other government bill before this. It will be the first bill, but I cannot say it will be the only business.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills:
Bill C-90, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1976.
Bill C-91, an act for the granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1977.



ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Government House Ottawa
30 March, 1976 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Jean Beetz, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 30th day of March, at 9.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere, Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.
12296

March 30, 1976
Measures Against Crime AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violence and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Peter Paul Masniuk: Mr. Speaker, when I called it five o'clock I was talking about the provisions governing certain restricted weapons, including handguns, which were written into the Criminal Code over 40 years ago.
I should like to leave my notes for a moment, however, and respond to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) this afternoon. I was interested in what he said about gun collectors who have invested a considerable amount of money in what Were-and will be until this bill goes through the House-restricted weapons. These collectors apparently invested in machine-guns of one sort or another. They went through the process of registering a weapon, removing the firing pin, and placing it in another part of the place where they kept their gun collection. They are now very concerned that passage of this bill would prohibit ownership of these guns.
I am very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about what will happen if the bill goes through in its present form. These machine-guns are only part of a collection. If the owners comply with every phase of the law and then a gun becomes a prohibited weapon which has to be turned over to the RCMP or some other agent of the government which will confiscate them, will the owners be compensated? There are a lot of other things in the bill that I disapprove of, Mr. Speaker, and as I proceed I will show why I cannot vote for the bill in its present form.
To return to my notes, I should like to say that a former commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. L. H. Nicholson, has stated that the registration program failed miserably. This short assessment of the former commissioner merely stated an old truth about gun controls, and that is that one simply cannot control crime or criminals by controlling guns.
What has been the result of almost 40 years of these tough hand-gun controls in Canada? An examination of the statistics with regard to hand-guns used in shootings does not provide much of a recommendation for controls. More than ever the statistics only tend to confirm former Commissioner Nicholson's assessment.
In 1973, according to the statistics, there were 214 shootings in Canada. Of these the second largest number, next to the rifle, were committed with the restricted hand-gun, 56. There were 114 rifle shootings that year. A year later, in 1974, there were 272 shootings in Canada, a 27 per cent increase in one year. During 1974, however, although the restricted hand-gun was still second to the unrestricted rifle in terms of its popularity for shooting people, the number of shootings committed with hand-guns had risen to 71. The number of shootings with the far more easily obtainable and completely unrestricted rifle only increased by eight in the same one year period.
I know that on the one hand statistics do not necessarily prove anything and, on the other hand, they can be used to prove anything one wants them to prove, but the very least that statistics like these should tell us is that so-called gun controls have no control at all over the use of guns to commit crimes.
An examination of the situation in other countries suggests that their experiences with gun controls are similar to Canada's with hand-gun controls. Anti-gun laws and regulations are actually quite prevalent in most countries of the world. However, crime statistics for practically all of them seem to indicate that gun controls have relatively little, if any, effect on reducing or eliminating crime.
The toughest gun control in the United States is New York State's Sullivan law. In the city of New York, out of a total population of some seven million plus, less than
25.000	qualify legally to possess a firearm of any kind. This law has been in effect for over 60 years. Yet in the 12 year period from 1960 to 1972 the homicide rate in the city of New York increased from 3.7 per 100,000 people in 1960 to
19.1	per 100,000 in 1972. In the one year period from 1971 to 1972 there was an 11 per cent increase in armed robbery, and a 37 per cent increase in aggravated assault.
A mid 1960's Interpol sampling of the murder rate in 30 countries ranged from a high of 177 murders per 100,000 population in the Arab country of Yemen to a low of 0.13 per 100,000 population in Norway. All the countries in the sample had gun control laws of one kind or another, either gun registrations, purchase permits, licences to carry, or various combinations of these. Obviously, however, they have no effect whatsoever on the murder rate.
It is interesting to note that this 30 country sample includes some countries whose gun control laws are not for the purpose of disarming the nation's citizens but, rather, are just for the opposite reason, for ensuring that the nation's citizens are adequately armed. Switzerland is the most well known country in this regard. In Switzerland there are no restrictive laws on the general use of firearms, but every able bodied adult male is required by law to possess and to know how to use a military rifle. Adult males must undergo throughout the year periodic short drills in the use of their military weapons. It is quite

March 30, 1976

possible that it was the existence of this armed and prepared citizen army which caused Hitler to think twice about trying to invade Switzerland during the second world war.
Quite apart from the required military drill, rifle and pistol shooting as sport are quite widely indulged in by the Swiss. Yet in spite of large numbers of all types of guns in the land of the Swiss people and their widespread availability and generally unrestricted use, Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates of any country in the world. In fact violent crimes of all kinds are rare in Switzerland. The same Interpol sample I mentioned a few moments ago shows that in the late 1960's Switzerland had a murder rate of 0.70 per 100,000 population, one of the lowest in the world.
There is an often repeated and rather trite expression to the effect that guns do not kill people, people kill people. Those in the office of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) responsible for this legislation must have had this expression in mind when they were drafting this bill. The response of the government to the fact that it is not guns, but people with guns, who kill, is to license people.
Bill C-83 is entitled measures to protect society against crime, but the one major and fundamental measure which the government has come up with, and which takes up more than half of this bill, is one which will have the least effect in protecting society against crime: licensing gun owners. I fail to grasp the logic in this type of legislation, that crime can be controlled by controlling the lawful activities of law abiding people. That is what this gun owner licensing law will really do. It is estimated that there are about eight million firearms in the hands of private citizens in Canada. Yet the number of shooting crimes in the country each year, even if we include those committed by criminals who have previous criminal convictions, and therefore possibly including those shootings committed with illegal firearms, is not more than a few hundred at the very most.
Less than 1 per cent of all the firearms owned in Canada are misused. The simple fact is that gun owners are law abiding people who are no more likely to shoot someone with their guns than they are to stab someone with their kitchen knives or to club someone to death with a garden rake. Yet now we have a government which wants to license all gun owners. Why? Well, because it might prevent someone who might otherwise obtain a gun from doing so and thereby prevent an unnecessary shooting death, the government says. I say possibly, but the number of such cases is too few to justify the massive bureaucracy which will be required for this gun owner licensing scheme.
The apologists for the government say that even if gun licensing prevents one unnecessary shooting death it is worth while. Is it not strange that a government which will not execute a mad dog killer but instead permits him to go free and kill again is now so concerned about the one or two shooting deaths which might be prevented by gun owner licensing?
Crime and shooting incidents cannot be affected by controlling law abiding people, which is what gun controls are for. They are not for criminals or political terrorists who will not obtain licences for their guns. Gun controls
Measures Against Crime
must therefore be for the potential, future criminal amongst the law abiding, but how can he possibly be identified in advance? An individual who at some time in his life might commit a murder of passion in most cases could probably qualify in every way for a gun licence. So could someone who was suddenly to go insane; there would not necessarily be a history of insanity which would prevent him from obtaining a gun licence.
Gun owner licensing might have some effect in preventing tragedies like those which occurred in Brampton and Ottawa last year-I say might. On this chance, this possibility, is owner licensing now going to be imposed on perhaps five million law-abiding Canadian gun owners who have no connection whatever with the Brampton and Ottawa tragedies? Where is the government's logic? It now proposes to set up another government bureaucracy, when all previous gun control schemes in this country and in other countries have proved to be unworkable, cumbersome, tremendously expensive, and completely ineffective in controlling crime and shooting deaths.
This new Canadian version of gun control is not really a gun control program at all, of course. It is people control. The government calls it the bill on peace and security. That title alone sounds suspect to many Canadians. It certainly raised plenty of eyebrows in my constituency of Portage when it was announced last month. How anyone on the government side can even say it without wincing, I do not know. Many of my constituents are beginning to feel that their own peace and security are more threatened by the government's people-control schemes than by any criminal element or mentally unbalanced gun owners.
I do not think that it is much of a secret, Mr. Speaker, that this Liberal government does not have much support out west on the prairies. It certainly could not have done more to make itself less popular in the rural areas of western Canada than to introduce this legislation. Gun ownership in rural Canada is high, much higher than in urban Canada. That is something which I know for a fact-
I come from and live in a rural area. Most people from the cities who probably do not know the situation very well will very likely accept that as a fact. We know that farmers and rural families are more likely to own one or more guns than are city dwellers. Yet the incidence of crime in rural Canada is very low. Spectacular shootings are not very common in the small towns, villages, and farming areas of our country, This seems to be more of a urban phenomenon.
Gun violence is to a very great extent an urban phenomenon. This bill, in seeking to combat it, will fall most heavily on those innocent people who have nothing at all to do with the problem, the small town and rural dwellers. Here we have a very clear case of a law penalizing the innocent and doing nothing to control the criminal. Most big city dwellers do not own guns. The government, in its frantic desire to appear to be doing something about increasing urban violence, has brought in this bill, which is really a new gun law which will most affect those who have absolutely nothing to do with urban crime.
How will requiring a farmer to obtain a licence for the gun which he uses for killing rodents or shooting ducks or
2 1804- 17Vi

March 30, 1976
Measures Against Crime
other game affect urban violence? How will requiring a gun collector to obtain a licence for his gun collection have any effect on the muggings or assaults in the dark alleys of our major cities? How will licensing the members of a gun club or shooting federation possibly have any effect on the incidence of armed robbery?
This law will require the statements of two guarantors before an applicant will be able to obtain a gun licence. This should not be a problem for any normal, law-abiding person; but what possible effect can it have on controlling the psychotics and mentally unbalanced individuals in society? How can owner licensing prevent a normal and well balanced individual from shooting a relative or neighbour in a fit of passion during a period of temporary insanity?
This bill makes provision for the establishment of a licensing officer, one of whose functions it seems will be to see that gun licenses are not given to undesirable people. This is absurd. The function of a licensing officer cannot be any more than a bureaucratic function. He should not be given the power, the authority, and the responsibility to make a judgment about something as important and as personal as one's character. This is something which only a psychologist or phychiatrist is adequately trained and competent to do.
This evening I have tried to give some of the reasons why I am opposed to the gun licensing provisions contained in this criminal law amendment bill, Bill C-83. I cannot believe that the defects inherent in any system of gun control or gun owner licensing are not apparent to the government. I cannot believe that the government really believes in the effectiveness of gun control laws. Yet here we have what is in effect a new gun law mixed in with other measures which may be very effective in controlling crime. These include new provisions for the treatment of dangerous offenders, changes for the handling of prison inmates, provisions for establishing special crime inquiries by the provinces, amendments to the wire-tapping laws which might make them more effective in investigating organized crime, and some proposals for the prevention of crime.
I support most of these measures, as do many of my colleagues on this side. But I cannot support these new gun control provisions which establish a new gun law in Canada. In the circumstances, all these proposals being grouped together in this one bill, C-83, opposition to the bill means that one must oppose what may be very worthwhile measures to combat crime. Support for this bill means that one must support an unnecessary, unworkable, and ineffective gun law, which I am unable to do. I therefore support the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) calling for the gun control provisions to be separated from Bill C-83 and treated as a new law in a new bill.
In conclusion I say that the deviousness of the government on this legislation is totally unacceptable to our party. The gun control provisions are the major and fundamental part of this legislation. They cannot be treated as just another crime prevention measure. They constitute a major revision of the criminal laws of our country. Gun control is far too important an issue to be treated this way, in this bill, by this government. I urge that the proposal of

the hon. member for Calgary North be considered and that the gun law amendments be severed from Bill C-83 and incorporated in a new bill. Only in this way can this House clearly and forthrightly address itself to such a serious and important issue, one which has so many profound implications for the operation of the criminal justice system in our nation.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on May 28 last year, it was my sad responsibility to rise and inform this House about the tragic shooting which had just occurred at Brampton Centennial high school in my riding. In a few brief, shocking moments two people were killed; one a teacher, the other a 17-year-old student. Thirteen other young people were wounded, some so seriously that they were to endure long and painful periods of recovery. Indeed some of them still bear and will continue to bear the indelible physical reminder of this ordeal. Finally and equally tragically, the troubled assailant turned his highpowered rifle on himself, adding his own name to the tragic toll of that afternoon.
That was a terrible time for the bereaved, a most difficult time for the injured, and an emotional time for the people of Brampton and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were shocked by the tragedy.
The Brampton tragedy and the later, equally tragic event in Ottawa served as a catalyst in the minds of citizens, police, and governments. It was felt that legislation must be forthcoming to deal more adequately with the increasing proliferation of guns, the rising crime rate involving guns, and the rising toll of domestic and domestic related gun killings.
Over 25,000 people in the Brampton area took the time and effort to drive to the local radio station to sign a petition in support of more effective gun control legislation. I am sure all members were in receipt of letters from all over Canada in support of effective gun legislation. Following the tragedy last July, the coroner's jury charged with the responsibility of investigating the shooting made the following recommendations. If I may, I would like to read them into the record. I quote:
(i)	We recommend raising the legal age to 18 years before one can obtain a hunting licence.
(ii)	We recommend raising the legal age for a minor s permit from 14 to 16 years of age to be used only in the accompaniment of a person holding a valid licence.
(iii)	We recommend requiring the purchaser of a rifle or shotgun to firstly obtain a gun licence which must be produced prior to the purchase of the firearm.
This licence should be issued solely by police departments upon receipt of documents stating the applicant's reason for desiring the licence, training courses taken and a brief certificate of health. The application should be then subject to police approval.
(iv)	We recommend that this same licence be produced upon the purchase of ammunition.
(v)	We recommend that the vendor record the sale of all firearms and ammunition.
(vi)	We recommend that all offences involving firearms come under the Criminal Code and be dealt with severely.
(vii)	We recommend that all firearms currently in households be securely locked up within the home.
March 30, 1976

As I shall show later, it is exactly the spirit and content of these recommendations which the government seeks to put into law through Bill C-83. It is the same spirit, the same plea for action that underlines the words of Mr. Slinger, father of the 17 year old student who was shot at that school. If I may quote a couple of paragraphs from the letter he sent to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) after the incident, they are:
Violence is ever present in our society and the contributing factors to its apparent increase may be debated unendingly. Changes in standards and values, pressures of urban living and many other causes are cited, but surely permissive attitudes, which have been so favoured and so common in the last 20 years or so, must be a major contributor to the unacceptable social behaviour of some members of society today. These things cannot be changed quickly by any legislative action, but changes can be made in our laws governing all aspects of the use of firearms and ammunition, the results of which should reduce the use of such weapons in acts of violence, particularly by people who are not generally regarded as criminals.
I would very much like to thank and to congratulate the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) for listening to these ideas and to the many other proposals put forth by myself and, I am sure, by most other members of the House. The result, in my opinion, is an excellent bill, one which deserves the support in principle of all hon. members from all parties in this House.
May I extend a particular and personal note of appreciation to the Solicitor General for the gracious and understanding way in which he discussed the tragedy and the need for remedial action with Mr. and Mrs. Slinger and members of their family. Their trip to Ottawa to discuss their feelings, to relive their experience, to share with officials and with the media the depth of their loss and their hopes for change, was indeed a courageous undertaking. I wish to congratulate them for their reasonable approach to the issue and also for their continuing leadership in this issue.
The need for action is clear. The Brampton incident, while unique in many aspects, is but symptomatic of growing and more general problems. Indeed it will interest the House to know that a teacher at Centennial High School, the same high school, after the tragedy did a survey of surrounding high schools. He found police records of seven other incidents involving guns in those schools.
The need for legislation is vividly demonstrated in the dimensions of the over-all national problem. If we check the period 1965-74 there has been a 115 per cent increase in crimes involving violence. Murder and manslaughter are up 115 per cent, rape 185 per cent, robbery 204 per cent, wounding and attempted murder, 183 per cent, and assaults 113 per cent. The most disturbing factor, however, has been the extent to which firearms have come to be used in crime.
Deaths caused by firearms in murders, suicides, and accidents are up 30 per cent since 1970. Suicide deaths involving guns are up 28 per cent. Guns are now used in over one third of all suicides. Last year 50 per cent of all murders were caused by firearms. Canada now has a gun homicide rate second only to that of the United States. In 1974 firearms were found to be used in two thirds of all armed robberies. The number of robberies involving guns is increasing at almost two times the rate of increase for robberies as a whole.
Measures Against Crime
In fact if you take the first quarter statistics of 1974 versus the first quarter of 1975, armed robberies with firearms increased some 73.5 per cent, armed robberies with other weapons by 44 per cent, and armed robberies with or without weapons 40 per cent. Surely the root cause of these startling trends lies in the increasing number of firearms present in our society and in the proliferation of certain types of firearms which have no legitimate social purpose.
If we look at the inventory of guns we should all be concerned. The number of weapons owned by Canadians is increasing at a rate greater than the rate of growth in population. Over the short period from 1970 to 1974 the average increase has been 3.8 per cent in gun inventory and only 2.2 per cent in terms of population. Canadians are buying guns at the rate of 1,370 a day. In 1960 there was roughly one gun in Canada for every 2.6 Canadians. That is now roughly one for every two Canadians.
We often hear the comment that we hope we will not resemble American society. When you talk about the level of guns, the fact is we are almost a society like that. The United States has about .7 guns per person; Canada has about .5. It is true the United States has about five times more hand-guns per capita, but Canada has proportionately the same number of long guns.
It is an irrefutable conclusion that the rate and number of crimes committed involving firearms are intrinsically related to the availability of guns. When more and more guns are being purchased without stricter controls placed on their use, we can only expect that associated crime rates will continue to escalate. The government, however, can neither condone further increases nor condone the current unacceptable levels of gun related offences.
I am convinced that Bill C-83 will go a long way to reduce the crimes involving guns, to reduce the proliferation of guns where there is no legitimate use for them, and to help ensure that guns are bought only by people who will respect them and use them properly.
The bill sets out provisions that fulfil these three objectives well in terms of reducing crime. There is a proposal for higher maximum sentences for crimes involving offensive weapons, a mandatory one year term and up to 14 years to run consecutively where a person uses an offensive weapon while committing an indictable offence.
There has been a lot of controversy about the seizure of weapons. New authority has been granted to police to seize a weapon, without a warrant, where danger to safety of some person is likely and where obtaining a warrant is impractical. We can all recall reading in the newspapers of situations where this would have been very desirable.
In terms of proliferation of guns the move from a restricted and prohibited firearms class has been expanded to include formerly restricted fully automatic guns, sawed off guns, and "Saturday night specials". I do not happen to be one who believes that people should be collecting operative fully automotive machine-guns.
The tightening of control on restricted firearms is such that applicants would be required to justify the need for such a weapon before being granted a registration certificate. That is one of the key provisions put forward in this bill.

March 30, 1976
Measures Against Crime
The recall program, again in terms of proliferation, is important. I am pleased that in both Brampton and Ottawa, where the two tragedies have occurred, police forces in both those municipalities are setting up a program so that people can bring guns to them and they will destroy them without any questions.
I do not need to pursue the provisions that will be or are set out for the licensing or legal responsibility. However, I think the legal responsibility is very important. Surely if a person owns a gun he should accept responsibility for the use of that gun while it is under his ownership.
I should like to conclude by making one or two comments concerning the objections raised by some hon. members and shared by sports clubs, rifle owners, and hunters. The basic argument they put forward is that there is really no need for Bill C-83 to involve long guns. When this question was previously discussed many people proposed that individual guns should be registered. Hon. members will note that the bill before us does not propose to follow this course. Instead, the people who own the guns are to be registered.
Many concerned citizens have written to me suggesting a central storage should be set up where all guns would be located; a person wanting to use his gun would have to go there to get it out, and return it there after use. Such a provision was not put into the bill, for good reason, nor was the extreme provision of making the ownership of firearms illegal. Some of the legitimate concerns felt by sportsmen and hunters have been answered inasmuch as those provisions I have mentioned are not in the bill.
The statistics with regard to the relationship between the use of long guns and crime are interesting. For instance, rifles are used in about two thirds of all domestic shootings, which indicates that the need for secure storage of such weapons within the home is important. Rifles were used in well over half of all murders committed between 1961 and 1974. Without doubt, rifles and shotguns are used in the majority of accidental shootings which occur. This would lead to the conclusion that to ignore the need to supervise the use and ownership of long barrelled weapons would be a failure to address ourselves to a large proportion of related incidents, particularly those of a passionate nature involving family, friends, and innocent bystanders. Rifle owners must accept responsibility to stem the misuse of their weapons; they must accept the requirement that all rifle and shotgun owners be duly licensed.
The provisions having to do with the confiscation of firearms will be set out in detail in the regulations. I know there are many who wish that all the regulations could somehow be incorporated into the bill. I do not think there need be any real concern on this score because any regulations which are published will have to go before the appropriate committee. This will provide an open forum at which anyone may review the progress which is made there.
I should also like to deal with the criticism that intervention by the government represents an unconscionable violation of civil liberties. I find it difficult to accept this proposition. I do not think any inherent legal right exists in common law in this country which guarantees free

ownership of weapons. It is, however, an irrefutable responsibility of government to provide for the peace and security of citizens while respecting fundamental civil rights, and while providing equitable appeal procedures from any of its decisions or actions.
From the very beginning of this country's history we have always vested responsibility for personal and private security with the police forces. If anything disturbs me, it is the recent trend of people purchasing firearms for their own safety. The greatest hazard in following this practice is to the purchasers themselves, because I believe more people end up victims of gun incidents than would ever need to use them in the circumstances they have envisaged. I often wonder why sportsmen in the gun clubs do not show leadership in talking about gun safety and providing education in the use of guns. If there is any threat to their continuing ability to own guns it is simply the recent tide of public opinion against guns in private hands.
Many people are asking whether this legislation will be, or can be, effective. I would draw attention to the situation in Japan where the law, in effect, prohibits private gun ownership and prescribes a strict five-year penalty for possession. Last year in Japan, where there is a population of 100 million, there were 37 homicides involving the use of firearms. That is about equal to the number in Toronto last year, a city which has a population of about 2.5 million. So Japan has about l/40th of the gun crime rate that Toronto has. I say this to back up my point that gun legislation can be effective in cutting down crime.
I conclude by calling on members in all parties to support the reference of this legislation to committee. I know there are many groups of people who wish to appear before the committee to express their points of view, and that is fine. But we ought to send the bill to committee as quickly as we can so that we can hear these various points of view and evaluate them thoroughly.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, the bill now under discussion recommends the adoption of legislation to provide better protection for the Canadian people against violent and other crimes. In the recommendation to the House I read provide that, quote:
to increase the number of members of the National Parole Board to not less than twenty-six members ...
Like most legislation introduced in this House, this bill is worded in a very intricate way and if enacted, the implementation procedure would cause delays and hitches in the enforcement of the law.
We all know that many Canadian sportsmen who possess hunting-guns might be searched by officials empowered by law to do so, even if it could be proven that the firearms which they own are used only for shooting during the hunting season.
Obviously criminals will not bother to check whether their guns are registered or not when they decide to use them for any theft or crime. As a result of interviews with many people from my region, I found out they were far from being in favour of these new controls. For instance, a gun collector wrote me a letter dated March 22, 1976 after
March 30, 1976

reading the provisions of Bill C-83 that I had given to him. Here is what he states in part:
In every country where prohibitive laws have been enacted, they had the effect of reducing the people's freedoms to the advantage of those who could not care less about legal matters.
He adds that controls of this kind would create hardships for a large number of Canadian citizens, and he makes a comparison with the registration of motor vehicles, which does not prevent accidents. It would be more useful, he adds, to stop giving free publicity to criminals, and describing terrible crimes in newspapers, in movies and on television, which cannot but rouse already disturbed minds. He goes on to say that we had better enforce existing laws before drafting others that are still more ambiguous and with which anyway, those who do not abide by the present legislation would fail to comply. In his view, this kind of prohibition will have no effect whatsoever on criminals and he goes on to say that he has never heard of a criminal being arrested in possession of a gun registered in his name.
According to a booklet published by an association responsible for the guidance in the safe training in the use of firearms, I read the following passage which I believe appropriate to quote:
We know that many politicians today prefer to blame the availability of firearms for the continuous rise in crime, rather than face the economic and social causes which are the roots of crime ...
I insist on this: rather than face the economic and social causes which are the roots of crime, and I continue the quotation:
. .. such as the failure of our penal system, the diminishing authority of our police forces, the moral and spiritual decline of our society and the general tolerating attitude prevailing today.
We firmly believe that any gun enthusiast must comply with the law in a responsible manner when participating in these activities. Most firearm fans comply with the law and are prepared to conform with the normal legal restrictions allowing every citizen to use firearms in a responsible way.
We know that the criminal disregards altogether any restriction about firearms.
Under present legislation, criminals can be severely punished, and so they should. Additional restrictions concerning firearms would only increase the pressure already imposed on the law-abiding owner of firearms. In my opinion, this is not the best way to protect the Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crimes.
A booklet published by the Law Reform Commission of Canada points out the problem of guilt by asking questions which call for consideration because, in some circumstances, guilt has to be determined. I quote a paragraph from this booklet:
What does being guilty mean? Most people think a person is guilty of an offence only if he was wholly aware of what he was doing and that he knew it was an offence.
But this is not what the law says. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse but mistake of fact can be one.
For instance, a person accused of selling drugs is found guilty even if he or she ignored that the sale of drug was forbidden by law. But if that person thought he or she was selling something else, sugar for instance, he or she is not guilty. However, the mistake of fact is not always an
Measures Against Crime
excuse, especially for minor offences. In 90 per cent of offences where liability is strict, the mistake of fact is not an excuse.
Elsewhere in the booklet, the following question is asked:
What is strict liability? Strict liability is a liability whether you are at fault or not. The motorist who runs through a stop is guilty even if he cannot see the sign, and so is the butcher who has tainted meat on his stall, even if he did not know the meat was tainted. Guilt therefore is not dependent upon fault.
I bet that a man would not be punished if he could prove that he was not at fault, that the stop sign was not visible, or that the meat deteriorated due to a power failure.
But according to the letter of the law, you should be found guilty. In fact there is a discrepancy between what is stated in the law and the way it is applied. But you could find even worse. The law is so complicated that you do not know when the responsibility is strict, nor do you know what the concept of strict responsibility means. However, each Canadian is likely to perpetrate about 40,000 of this type of strict responsibility offences, which make up about 90 per cent of our penal laws. Each year they account for 1,300,000 condemnations. One person out of 25 in Canada is condemned. This is a tremendous problem, especially when, on top of that, it is impossible to know what the law requires or what it prohibits.
This shows that I have very good reasons to insist that the laws and regulations should be written more clearly so that we may not be likely to condemn people who are not guilty at all.
I should like to make a few remarks on the subject of parole, a problem which is inevitably linked to the lives of the inmates in the penitentiary institutions of Canada.
Having had the opportunity to participate in discussions and work done in the committee which studied penitentiaries, I will say also that this participation gave me the advantage of a group visit to the St.Vincent de Paul penitentiary and the maximum security institution then being built in that area. I made interesting findings and got acquainted with all the responsibilities of those who are in charge of various correctional departments such as practical works, teaching, maintenance, supervising, cooking and clothing. I am not one of those who are prepared to admit that everything is perfect, that we have done all we could possibly do and that everything works wonderfully well. Indeed I would be in danger of being suddenly contradicted by various cases of rebellion and revolt which have already occurred in penitentiaries or cases of evasion which have enabled some reporters on the look out for sensational news to write reports which have contributed to promote the sale of their newspapers, not to mention some cartoonists who have shown in their usual style various ways to flood a rink without considering the weather when hoses are used for other purposes.
It is obvious that there is much room for improvement in the organization of our prisons in Canada and the matter is urgent. First we will have to acknowledge that the prime responsibility of the authorities of those establishments is to keep in their institutions the individuals committed to them and I am convinced that it is not always an easy task. In most cases, the prisoner does not resign himself to

March 30, 1976
Measures Against Crime
accepting a way of life dictated by circumstances. He spends 4/5th of his time looking for ways to escape.
Most are clever enough to invent evasion schemes that sometimes leave the best trained guards out on a limb. For this reason, what is needed is a well disciplined staff, constantly on the lookout. Among other various responsibilities, the people in charge of those institutions must find the most adequate means of using the different methods of rehabilitation, based on the prisoner's position, his background, his good and bad points, his abilities, his preferences. A period of observation must be very closely followed by well trained people. If the rehabilitation service is to produce the results that society can expect, a number of improvements are required, despite all the efforts to date.
There is in my view an essential factor as far as rehabilitation is concerned. That is inmate classification, inmate grouping in small units. The younger and newly admitted ones should not be allowed to remain in contact with the more hardened so they do not get to learn the tricks used by experienced criminals, to prepare while detained new procedures to fool those who enforce the peace that must be maintained in a civilized society. It seems to me this is one of the basic factors that should open a better approach to the rehabilitation exercise.
Inmate grouping in small units offers a means of noting psychological reactions between people who become familiar one with the other. The guards are in a much better position to observe them objectively, and inmates get a clearer perception of it.
Small units also are a very practical work tool when it comes to discussing a particular case. When a guard has to deal with a hundred or so people, he cannot observe and note individual behaviour. When, on the other hand, he knows a small group, he sees each person as a distinct individual. In this kind of situation he is in a better position to state the observed behaviour, to discuss its explanation and the ways to implement changes he feels are needed and useful. This may also help guards find out the nature of and rationale behind the sometimes constructive criticism of their own behaviour towards inmates. This helps them exercise a better control over themselves, to the point they sometimes can use their personal emotions to the benefit of inmates.
Guiding the discussion in such a way that under certain circumstances satisfactory results can be obtained, can replace to a large extent the formal study of psychological techniques many would like the guards to have. After proper schooling, the study of specific cases, added to practical experience, can become truly professional school training. Whoever heads it can give applied instruction.
I should like to say one word about the level of comfort in prisons: it is impossible to indicate, with mathematical precision, what degree of comfort should be given the prisoners. That degree cannot be set: it varies according to the society and time involved. For a prisoner, learning to live in normal comfort is an integral part of his rehabilitation. On the other hand, keeping him in an uncomfortable environment, to which scorn is at times added, can prevent him from becoming aware that he really has a chance of

returning to normal life. That can be readily understood. Before going into captivity, the prisonner could resort to all sorts of pretexts to feel hated and rejected by society. During his detention, where he would be subjected to brutality, he would have a sort of proof that he is hated. So he would feel authorized to protect himself by hatred and on the first occasion he would be ready to defend himself with more boldness and personal assurance.
I believe that the inmates must have good food and enjoy facilities to maintain themselves properly. Each and every inmate must comply by health rules. In concluding, I want to say however that the inmates should not expect to enjoy all the advantages they would have if they led a normal life. Of course they are directly responsible for the restriction of their liberty and I think that we must pay more attention to their victims.
When we listen to some supporters of liberation, we tend to conclude that they pay more attention to the criminals than to their victims. We should not reverse the roles by taking into account circumstances which provoked irresponsible actions by some individuals who could not easily adjust to a normal existence.
In the summary for the Minister of Justice or second reading of Bill C-83, we find that there will be stiffer restrictions over temporary releases without escort. Also the detention period required before that privilege could be granted will be extended and the parole board rather than penitentiary authorities will be authorized to grant that privilege.
That is to prevent decisions from being taken too hastily and so avoid the presence in the community of an individual who could be a danger for the security of people who want to live peacefully in an organized society.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: I appreciate the opportunity to address the House this evening on this very important matter, Mr. Speaker, namely, Bill C-83. Much has been said already about the controversial nature of this bill and many members have made worth-while contributions to the debate.
I was profoundly troubled at the opening of the debate on hearing the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) say that crime is under control in Canada. Surely the minister speaks in jest. Crime has been on the increase in this country for several years now, both at the highly organized level among professional gangsters and also at the street level among many of our youth aspiring toward professional criminal careers.
What is especially disturbing to Canadians though, is not only the obvious increase in the crime rate but the violence with which the increasing amount of this crime is being committed.
The government has failed miserably to deal adequately with this very serious problem. If we are to take seriously some of the speeches from the government side of the House it has not yet fully recognized that crime is indeed a very serious problem. The government, realizing it has been unable to deal with crime effectively, chooses to underplay the fact of its very existence. That is an irresponsible and rather ridiculous attitude, and it is one that is condemned by members on this side of the House.
March 30, 1976

I waited in anxious anticipation for the introduction of this legislation with the mistaken thought that at long last the government was going to embark on a significant course toward protecting better the majority of Canada's law abiding citizens. Bill C-83 is a monumental disappointment to me. I had hoped for better.
The provisions of this bill do nothing to get at or eradicate the real causes of crime. There are no drug related provisions in the bill, for example, despite the fact that the drug trade is responsible for a higher percentage of crime in one form or another, and for criminal activity in Canada. The actual process of drug trafficking and numerous crimes of violence perpetrated by drug users in fact account for over half of the criminal activities in this country. Why is this problem not being attacked?
What answer does the Minister of Justice have to offer to the Canadian public for not guaranteeing their protection? He well knows that these insignificant changes in the law, such as gun control, are totally useless in face of such serious omissions as failure to deal with the drug problem.
I agree that legislation pertaining to dangerous offenders, bail reform, and rules of parole is certainly necessary, but what we have here is a series of regulations which, although not objectionable, are extremely limited in scope. If this legislation is a politically expedient attempt to appease an aroused public it may be moderately successful for as long as it takes the public to realize it has been had.
If by chance, this legislation should be truly aimed at the real maintenance of peace and security, as the government wants to call it, then I am afraid it is a dismal failure. Yet these appear to be the only changes that government is now prepared to offer. In that sense I could reluctantly support some of these provisions, not because they are worthy, but because the criminal situation is becoming so seriously acute that one must grasp at whatever straw of relief is offered, regardless of how lacking in substance it may be.
Despite its obvious shortcomings I could probably support this bill both in principle and in practice except for one glaring deficiency, that is, the complete unacceptability of the provisions relating to gun control. The control of guns is an extremely controversial and complex issue in much the same way as is the issue of capital punishment. Due to this complex nature of the gun control subject I feel that legislation in this regard should be dealt with separately, as is the legislation regarding capital punishment.
My point, Mr. Speaker, and the main thrust of my argument today is that, in order to deal with this so-called peace and security legislation effectively, the bill must be severed. I submit that the bill should not be read a second time but that the subject matter should be sent to committee in order to be severed-the gun control sections to be separated from the rest.
Were we able to deal with this matter apart from the rest, we could better debate and hopefully solve many of the difficulties inherent in the attempted legislative control of firearms. I strongly support the motion put forth by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).
Measures Against Crime
These provisions related to gun control have clearly been introduced in the name of short term political expediency. It is a sinister attempt to mislead the Canadian public into believing that the government is doing something about crime prevention when in fact it is doing nothing.
There has been and continues to be an outcry from the great majority of Canadians over the ever increasing trend toward murder and violence in this nation. Despite what the Minister of Justice may have to say, it is a known fact that crime is not under control in this country. There is nothing at all in this bill that attacks the root causes of crime, and too little in the way of effective punishment and restraint to give us any real hope that crime may be brought under some degree of control in the foreseeable future.
The government is now attempting to seduce the innocent populace into believing that it is moving in the area of crime prevention by its introduction of gun control. This is a sham argument. There will be no noticeable reduction of violent crime as a result of the measures proposed in Bill C-83. All that will result is another bureaucratic nightmare that serves no useful purpose other than to give the appearance of the government as a law enforcer.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has taken the position that gun control laws of the nature of those before us now can serve no worth-while purpose. Surely this association must be regarded as expert in this field. Why then has the government totally ignored its views on this matter? Who could possibly be in a better position to comment on the prevention of violent crime and the relative worth of laws affecting the control of firearms than an association of chiefs of police, men and women who all their working lives have been dealing with crime prevention and enforcement?
The problem as seen by the police chiefs is the number of violent crimes that are being committed and with which, wrongly or rightly, a firearm is being identified. There is no doubt that firearms have been involved in the commission of violent crime. It must not be forgotten that violent crime is also committed with knives, chains, hammers, axes, and lead pipes, to name but a few other instruments. There is no doubt there is an increasing concern by society about the nature, extent, and number of violent crimes. It would not be overstating the case to declare that many of society's members now have a feeling of being unsafe.
Three categories of crime that have been associated with violence and firearms have been identified by the police chiefs. One category deals with a socio-political movement associated with the manifestation of anti-establishment thinking that has accompanied the short or long drawn out process of government change. The second category deals with an element of society which will always choose to live off the avails of normal appetites, with minimum personal effort and with total disregard of its effects toward society. This is the category of crime for profit. The third category is, of course, the crime of passion, a usually violent act committed in a moment of passion or temporary insanity.
It is essential to note that in any of these categories those dedicated to the perpetration of crime will not or cannot submit to any law, and already disregard existing legislation. It is equally as fundamental to note that the gamut of violent crimes perpetrated for any of these rea-
12304


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Kent-Essex and, I believe, on behalf of many Canadians ranging far from that constituency, I see in this bill the answer to what has been a public need, and indeed public demand for assurance that there will be protection from those who, for whatever reason, have decided to strike out against society and declare that they have no use for it, no use for the rights of individuals other than themselves, and would deny their co-citizens even the right to life.
Although I am quick to admit that the public is looking to this legislation to determine whether it supplies the assurance of protection it seeks, I am not one who is convinced that past legislation has been grossly lacking in that protection. Rather, I would want to satisfy myself that the bill does not go so far in an attempt to provide the trappings of public protection that, in the process, it denies many of the justifiable and lawful rights our citizens generally have been able to enjoy up to this point.
I might debate, and indeed agree, with some of my friends on the other side that the sheer size of this bill precludes in some small measure a meaningful intervention on all of its many facets. I would not, however, argue that that precludes a meaningful debate and that because of its size it should be broken up into many parts. Rather, I propose to limit my remarks, as others have done, and deal with perhaps two of the issues, gun control, and electronic surveillance.
In principle I am able to agree that the bill, including the measures in those two areas, will indeed have my support. These measures are aimed at strengthening the criminal law and its administration as it applies to crimes of violence. I view as laudable the objective of the measure regarding guns, which is stated to be the screening out of potential misusage, to restrict the general availability of guns without undue harassment of legitimate users for hunting and other sports, to enforce high standards in the safe keeping and proper use of firearms, and to discourage the use of firearms in the commission of crime.
I have no quarrel with the improvisation of a licensing system, as I see this as a far fairer and more productive system of gun control than that of registration of firearms, since it is obviously aimed at the individuals who would own and use guns as opposed to the actual weapons themselves.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) earlier this afternoon was speaking about break and entry thefts in his area, and he felt that even though proper precautions might be taken for the storage of guns, they would be taken when crime was committed. I suggest that in most cases people who break and enter cottages-as described by the hon. member-or a home or a place of business, break and enter not seeking guns but money or other valuables which might be sold. When they fall upon or come upon guns within those premises they use the opportunity, having found those guns, to take them away perhaps to sell or perhaps to use later. When describing this type of occurrence the hon. member suggested that the bill before us would be of absolutely no use whatsoever. Surely the hon. member cannot argue that any law prohibiting the use and ownership of guns is not a deterrent. I cannot agree with him.
Measures Against Crime
Intentionally or accidentally, that hon. member described this legislation as legislation requiring the registration of guns. I think all hon. members present know that people confuse licensing with registration. Many Canadians fear that a registration system will be unproductive and create a bureaucracy. It is known that police forces, hunting associations, and other associations do not support the registration system. Calling this system a registration system is misnaming it. It is a misnomer. This is to be a licensing system, not a registration system, and can be likened to the system of licensing automobiles. I invite all hon. members to consider this bill in its true light, as a licensing system, and ignore the myth perpetrated on the public by the media to the effect that this is to be a registration system. They are different and should not be confused.


An hon. Member:: There is to be licensing on what basis?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, obviously on the basis of competence to use a gun.


Mr. Towers:: How can you say that?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I suggest that my hon. friend should look at the legislation.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yes, but who will decide? Will the hon. member not say?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I believe that it is now well established that it is not the firearm in itself that is the culprit, but the man or the woman who holds it. I believe that there is an obligation on society as a whole to assure that individuals who would use firearms have the physical and mental capacity to use those weapons in a safe and a reasonable manner. Indeed, I would go so far as to say the the hunting and gun clubs in my riding have been champions of the rights of individual Canadian citizens who continue to enjoy the use of firearms for sport, be it target shooting or hunting or, indeed, the collecting of weapons. They were among the first to indicate that a fair licensing law which would have certain safeguards to assure that the licensing officials do not have too much uncontrolled and unobserved authority would be a good thing. Indeed they have offered their assistance in terms of providing training classes and instructors for the express purpose of providing the potential gun owner and handler with the necessary knowledge to handle a gun safely.
I am supporting this provision of the legislation which would propose to put up a licensing provision for firearms, while I would advocate that great care must be taken to assure that the administration of that sort of licensing must not be allowed to become so large and cumbersome that the cost thereof becomes in itself an undue burden for those who would legally pursue the ownership and use of firearms for sport and hunting.
Having said all that, I am concerned about particular subclauses of the bill dealing with gun control, beginning with proposed section 95(1) which reads:
Every one who sells, barters, gives, lends, transfers or delivers any firearm or ammunition to a person who is not the holder of a licence
21804-18'/2

March 30, 1976
Measures Against Crime
under which he may lawfully have in his possession firearms or ammunition
(a)	is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for
two years, or
(b)	is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
The intent of course of this particular provision is at first reasonable, apparently justifiable, and not too apparently onerous, given the thrust of the entire legislation. However, I ask hon. members to consider the occasion of a hunting foursome who agree to attend a given place at a given time in order to enjoy the sport of a rabbit shoot or a pheasant hunt.
A couple of hours and many shots later, one of the four, having expended all of his shells, requires of the other three the loan of some shells in order to complete the hunt with his friends. To complete the scenario, let us suppose that one shot later-the shot having been fired by the person who has just borrowed a shotgun shell-a lands and forest inspector appears on the scene and asks for the appropriate licences for hunting and possession of the guns and ammunition. Let us say he discovers that the individual to whom the ammunition was lent is not the holder of a valid licence lawfully to have in his possession firearms or ammunition, and an inquiry is made into the source of the ammunition. Subsequently it is determined that the ammunition was lent to the culprit by one of the party, who then is charged with an indictable offence or, at the very least, is charged upon summary conviction.
Surely this House would not agree that in setting up the licensing provisions for control of guns we must now make all hunters such as I have described inspectors of the legislation, bound under penalty to inquire whether an individual, friend or acquaintance has borrowed some ammunition. Surely it is not the intent to make them inspectors under the act. We cannot liken this to the licensing provisions of provinces for citizens to drive automobiles. Indeed ministers have themselves on occasion argued that licensing was preferable to registration; that gun licensing was reasonable upon the same basis as the licensing of automobiles. I ask you to consider for a moment whether any of the provincial licensing authorities of automobiles make it an offence to lend your automobile to an individual who is not licensed to drive.
As far as I am aware, it is not a provincial statutory offence or a criminal code offence to knowingly lend an automobile to a person who does not hold a licence. I agree that there are certain civil considerations that come into play, and certain statutory contractual provisions that come into play with respect to the insurance of a vehicle and the loss thereof as a result of an unlicensed driver operating it but we are certainly going a long way, perhaps too far, is suggesting that the individual who knowingly or unknowingly provides ammunition, as in the situation which I have described, is guilty of an indictable, or at the very least, summary conviction offence. I submit this particular provision of the legislation should at the very least require that the individual who lends the ammunition shall have knowledge that a person receiving the ammunition or the firearm is unlicensed; alternatively we should remove that particular provision completely.
I am not so greatly concerned with the individual who is in the business of providing firearms or ammunition, since

I believe it is reasonable to expect in the course of a business that the seller shall require a licence to be produced before the ammunition is sold, bartered or transferred for monetary return. I do not believe that the same sort of conditions can be required of a movement of the ammunition and guns between friends.
Let me move on now to proposed section 103 dealing with seizure and forfeiture. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), speaking on this bill just a few days ago, drew attention to proposed section 103. It deals with search without warrant of a person, vehicle, place or per-mises other than a dwelling house. A peace officer may seize anything by means of or in relation to which "he reasonably believes the offence is being committed or has been committed." This obviously deals with seizure by a police officer of any weapon, used or being used in the commission of an offence. Indeed the first part of the proposed section relates to restricted weapons or firearms, so that I believe the government's position is not so onerous as to be feared, as the police have now the right to seize weapons used in the commission of an offence.
I am more concerned, however, with proposed section 105(2), which now provides:
Where with respect to any person the peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of that person, or of other persons, that that person should have in his possession, custody or control any firearm or other offensive weapon or any ammunition or explosive substance and that the danger to the safety of that person or other persons is such that to proceed by way of an application under subsection (1) would be impracticable, the peace officer may without warrant search for and seize any firearm or other offensive weapon or any ammunition or explosive substance in the possession, custody or control of that person.
I recognize that the case of the domestic quarrel upon which the police officer arrives, only to find himself staring down the barrel of a rifle or shotgun, is probably the classic case to which this particular provision will apply. I am concerned, however, that the well-intentioned police officer will now have the right, upon arriving at the scene of a domestic quarrel, whether or not a gun be in sight, to search and seize, regardless of what place and at what time, any and all offensive weapons, firearms, ammunition, etc., thereby putting the individual in a position where he must then make application to an appropriate court for the return of those guns or other articles, whether or not the officer had justifiable grounds for making the search and seizure.
I believe that this is an unjustifiable and unwarranted encroachment upon the individual rights and liberties of our citizens, by putting the subjective decision into the hands of individual police officers; it is in my view overreaction to this admitted problem which has been faced by our law enforcement officers for some time.
I was interested in listening this afternoon to the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise). He said that this bill did not address itself to the real causes of crime. When I listened to him he seemed to say that he would relate the real causes of crime to drugs and the use thereof. He seemed to imply that gun control measures were useless. In fact I believe he went so far as to say they were useless. To argue in that manner is to argue that there is no deterrent effect
March 30, 1976

to any law passed by this House. I really cannot accept that premise.
It may appear to us here that it is impossible to place into the Criminal Code methods of dealing with root causes of crime. However, I suggest to that hon. member, and to the chiefs of police association to which he referred, that what they should not be attempting is to correct, amend or change this legislation through the media or by writing letters. We should be challenging those individuals, be it the chiefs of police, gun control lobbyists hunting clubs or gun collectors, as well as encouraging and inviting them to appear before the committee to state those changes that they see as necessary to this legislation. That, of course, cannot be done until this House puts the legislation before the committee so it can be dealt with there. Therefore I encourage all members to send this legislation on to the committee as quickly as possible.
The hon. member for Elgin described this legislation as being a registration. I suggest to him, as I suggested with relation to the comments made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), that it is a misnomer to suggest registration. We are not registering guns, we are not registering owners. We are licensing individuals to possess a firearm.
I suggest there is a deterrent effect. There is the ability to determine whether the individual is the type of person who should or should not have the use of a firearm. There are certain deterrent effects as a result of the imposition of fines and so on if you do not comply with the regulations. To argue it is ineffectual is to argue there is no deterrent effect in legislation. If we argue that, surely we argue that the entire Criminal Code has no effect.
I would now wish to deal very briefly with the subject of electronic eavesdropping or wiretapping and I believe, shortly put, I would argue in the same manner as the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) when he states his concern that the proposed provisions would allow a judge to defer giving notice on the basis of a continuing suspicion when an investigation has, for all intents and purposes, concluded. I, like that hon. member, have substantial reservations about allowing notice to be deferred when we are only proceeding on the basis of continuing suspicion and when the investigation has actually finished.
Members have spoken of the need to balance various and competing factors, the need to protect individual privacy on the one hand and the ability by police to pursue organized crime. In reading the provisions of the bill regarding electronic eavesdropping I am concerned that we not undo some of the best features of the protection of privacy act. I am not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the power given by parliament in 1973 to the judges to admit secondary evidence has not been working. I fully support the admissa-bility of derivative evidence within the confines of judicial supervision. Such supervision guarantees a rather healthy tension and a proper balance between the right to privacy and the ability to pursue crime.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka made a rather interesting comment today when he spoke of wiretaps. He suggested they appear to be O.K., particularly to those in rural areas who are used to party lines. He spoke of the acceptability of wiretapping, provided it was judi-
Measures Against Crime
cially done and there was consent of the court. He spoke about reasonable length of time and notice being given. I suggest there is a grave concern with which we must look at this legislation, that is, whether in attempting to give police officers increased ability to tap we do not in fact encroach upon the individual rights of citizens to which they are entitled.
In summing up, I am supportive of whatever measures we can reasonably provide to our police and criminal investigative forces while simultaneously assuring the individual of the right to privacy. I would be most zealous in not providing officers of the law with the legal wherewithal to erode the rights of individuals. I believe that this legislation brings with it the substantial potential for what might broadly be termed illegal wiretapping by that element of society which is supposed to be protecting us from criminals. If we cannot be assured that wiretapping is to be done and if in fact it is being done, without taking advantage of us, our position would be untenable.
The minister has made it clear that he is prepared to listen attentively and with an open mind to the submissions which are to be made with respect to this bill in committee, in the House, and I anticipate participating further in the ensuing debate that takes place in committee. May I once again suggest and invite hon. members to ensure that this piece of legislation is made available to the committee as soon as possible.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-83 we are dealing with a quite emotional subject, with varying beliefs held by citizens, one point of view being to the effect that if there were no guns at all, crime would vanish, and the other point of view being that if guns are controlled, crimes with violence will increase because the criminal element will have the ability to procure guns and law-abiding citizens will have no means to contest the criminal.
It seems as though reports and statistics on murders are based on overstated opinion and overworked emotions. At one end of the interest groups are individuals and lobbies taking the position that stricker gun legislation would have the effect of augmenting the crime rate. Some people at this end of the scale even suggest that the forced registration of all guns would weaken the public and make it the target for violent criminal activity. In the United States this group has gone so far as to form a strong lobby to uphold the second amendment of the U.S. constitution:
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
At the opposite end of the scale is a group which proposes stricter gun control legislation. Its members base their stand on a belief that tighter legislation would make it almost impossible for a criminal to purchase a gun to use in committing a crime. The fact is that legislation or none, a criminal will obtain any weapon he desires.
To cover the issue of gun control legislation fully we must look at the cause of increased violence and the relationship between that increased violence and the use of firearms. It might be advantageous to examine some of the factors on the basis of which we, as legislators, are now

March 30, 1976
Adjournment Debate
called upon to make decisions. It has been estimated that there are upwards of eight million guns in Canada. Most of the owners of these firearms, probably 99 per cent, use their weapons properly, are law-abiding people, and deplore as much as anyone the use of firearms in crimes. Mass ownership of firearms is certainly not a major cause of increased violence.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-90, Appropriation Act No. 1, 1976.-Chapter No. 89.
Bill C-91. Appropriation Act No. 2, 1976.-Chapter No. 90.
Bill C-85, An Act respecting immigration security.-Chapter No. 91.
Bill C-86, An Act to amend the Veterans Insurance Act and the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.-Chapter No. 92.
Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Crown Liability Act, the Immigration Act and the Parole Act.-Chapter No. 93.
Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Feeds Act.-Chapter No. 94.

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in the House tonight, and to be honoured by his presence. I also want to congratulate him on the speed with which he moved after I drew this matter to his attention last week. His attitude has changed altogether since then, and I can understand why it would, because apparently he did not have many of the facts or the report from the fellows who went down to Washington and met with the U.S. president.
I should like to say a few words about this virus infection and make one or two observations about the minister's 
announcement. First of all, people are asking what this swine flu is. It is an acute respiratory infection that affects up to 40 per cent or more of the population with headaches, aches, and pains generally in the same area as with other flu viruses. It can swing from the respiratory field to the gastro-intestinal field by mutation. It will keep some individuals away from work for a month or more. If the individual develops pneumonia it is a bacterial pneumonia, or a bronchial pneumonia which can be cleared up with antibiotics. The individual can get a pneumonia which can last from one to two months. As an example we have the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whom I see sitting down there in the House. He had this viral infection and he can tell you how it makes you feel, and how draggy you become.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I didn't lose a day, though.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The first influenza vaccine was manufactured during the second world war. It is interesting to note that the fellow who worked on that was Jonas Salk who later on developed the polio vaccine. He is now in charge of the Salk Institute doing virological work in San Diego, California. According to reports he has stated very definitely that there is need for mass vaccination.
I want to say to the minister that he is absolutely wrong when he separates the population by age groups. That cannot be done effectively, because you can vaccinate three or four in one household, with two or three not vaccinated. They will bring the disease in and give it to the others if the virus is strong enough. You only get a certain degree of immunity from vaccination, up to 80 per cent. That is why this is wrong. That is why Jonas Salk said that mass vaccinations must be carried out, and he urges speed in this regard.
The swine virus vaccination has a very short incubation period of from 12 to 36 hours, and spreads very rapidly. If it goes according to plan in the next year this will flair up and we will probably have an epidemic.
One interesting thing is that the flu virus is made up of several parts-up to eight. Those parts shuffle around in a process called mutation and form a new strain. Hong Kong flu in 1968 was the last major outbreak. It could be back in the process again recycling itself in 1978. You do not get immunity to virus flu as you do to measles because it mutates like musical chairs. That is why it is very difficult to keep it under control. The virus hides in the body.
I remember after the 1918 flu epidemic, about 1925 and into the 1930's, we saw many cases of people no older than the minister himself contracting Parkinson's disease as a result of the Spanish flu. We believe the virus can hide in the cells of the brain and hide elsewhere in the body, and that it may cause degenerative diseases and cancer. It is one of the diseases we have never been able to control.
It is interesting to note that the first real evidence of virus appeared in 1610. There were two severe outbreaks in Canada in 1889 and 1918. It is a killer disease, and speedy. It is necessary to utilize all the facilities and to have the total manufacturing output of vaccine under scrupulous care. I am certain that if the vaccination were carried out
March 30, 1976

for all viruses it would cut millions of dollars from our health care costs.
I visited a home the other day, Mr. Speaker, and I should like the minister to listen to this. There were 15 deaths there and none of the patients had been vaccinated. I think the minister should keep that in mind.
The common viruses are A, B, and Victoria. I believe the latter killed about 250,000 people in New Guinea. In the United States they have achieved up to 80 per cent immunity through vaccination. The incubation period is between 12 and 24 hours. It is the scourge of mankind and, as I say, we have never been able to control it. As the minister said, we have got to the point where the only way we can settle this is by total vaccination. With Spanish flu there were 50 million infected and 20 million died. Vaccination would take away some of the fear.
I hope the minister has been in touch with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) about eggs. I am sure he has and I am sure he will get lots of eggs. He must also have the rooster, however, because the eggs have to be fertilized before the virus is injected. When the virus is drawn off it is killed by formalin and then it is ready to inject.
The minister said today that there would be immunity within two or three weeks, but I want to tell him that I have never known this to be the case with a virus vaccine. He may be right, but I wish he would question that point. In the vaccines we have used to date the two shots are given two months apart, and once a year thereafter.
The minister has taken a step in the right direction but I want to prod him tonight to make it universal and in a hurry. He told us that the vaccine costs only 75 cents per person. Mr. Speaker, there is no way a doctor can collect $6 for giving the injection when, under OHIP, his fee is perhaps $3. Even at $3 or $4 it is the cheapest insurance we can buy-even if there is not an outbreak.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) for his comments. Not having the privilege of being a medical doctor myself I always attach a lot of importance to his views. He has had a long experience and expertise in the practice of medicine.
I regret that the hon. member was unavoidably absent yesterday and today when we debated the quarantine bill and discussed the announcement on the vaccination, but I am pleased he could be in the House tonight. I made a point of being here to listen to his views.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: With regard to the suggestion about mass innoculation, I remind the hon. member that I have acted and my department has acted upon the advice of the national advisory committee which is regrouping the best epidemiologists in the country, and we have tried to get the best scientific advice available in this country. We have decided to follow the recommendation of the national advisory committee to the letter. If it can be established that this advisory committee did not go far enough or was wrong, we will certainly be very happy to review the situation, but in the meantime I obviously must rely on what is considered to be the unanimous opinion of the
Adjournment Debate
people we consider the most knowledgeable in this field in Canada at the present time.
As I said this afternoon, we are in close touch with United States authorities, the United Kingdom, the World Health Organization, and the centre in London, England, on this subject, and there is to be a special meeting called by the WHO on April 8. Canada will be represented at that meeting, and I am sure we will follow the situation very closely. Any change in the proposed action will be communicated to the House, and particularly to the hon. member with great pleasure.


AGRICULTURE-PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF TRANSPORT SUBSIDY ON FLOUR TO EAST COAST PORTS-ALLEGED CONFLICT IN MINISTER'S STATEMENTS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, now that the deputy vice regal pen has put the deputy vice regal ink to the interim supply bill-otherwise known as an act for the relief of the Bank of Montreal, Wellington Street division in the city of Ottawa-we may now turn back to a serious state of affairs which will occur unless we in the opposition are able to head it off later this year. That issue is the removal of the flour and grain movement subsidies or rail subsidies under section 272 of the Railway Act. This is not the first time I have raised this matter here. This is probably its second and perhaps third appearance on the late show. I leapfrog with the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) on this important issue. We are the east and west twins trying to co-ordinate efforts by a great number of Canadians on what I think is an important issue because it affects the export life and the port life of this country.
Before the end of the year I hope that we will have persuaded members of parliament from Montreal that- believe it or not-their port is greatly affected by what Bill C-87 proposes. I hope the hon. member for Saint John-Lan-caster (Mr. Landers) will interest himself in the issue because there are many dozens of jobs in his own port and millions of dollars at stake in the future.
I have the support of my hon. colleagues from the Halifax area. As a matter of fact, they deputed this job to me.
I can tell the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), when he brings in his restraint bill, that he has to pilot it through parliament, and it has to be passed before section 272 of the Railway Act is gone and the subsidies are gone. There will be many more than the hon. member for Vegreville and myself who will be taking part in this battle. The minister will know what full scale and total war is all about.
Bill C-87 will affect port life and the flour and grain operations of the three eastern Canadian ports. I pointed out last week, and the hon. member for Vegreville pointed out last night, that the milling industry in Canada and the miller, who was much esteemed in medieval times, are becoming part of the dodo legend because big companies are simply taking over their operations, and small milling operations are starting to dry up in Canada.
The measure which is proposed by the government will not do anything to reverse that rather tragic process. However, as I say, until the repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act, the subsidies will remain. I ventured to suggest to the

March 30, 1976
Adjournment Debate
President of the Treasury Board, when we discussed this last night in the miscellaneous estimates committee, that we might enjoy each other's company until Christmas at least.
I ask for the support of Montreal members on this issue, and for the support of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster. I am sure he has been working behind the scenes. Sometimes conditions are so desperate that even government members must creep out from behind the curtains and involve themselves in debate on the floor of this House. After all, this is where the action should take place and where the hon. member's voters expect the action to occur.
I request the support of others when this bill comes before the House. I particularly request the support of those hon. members in whose constituencies there are flour mills. I ask them to talk on this important issue. I request the support of western members of parliament in whose constituencies grain is grown. I hope they too will discuss this issue.
I request the support of all who think of Canada as one country in which not only the more fortunate, central parts should receive economic benefits. The area I represent was good enough to serve, as it were, as the front line trench in two world wars. Our people were happy to see Halifax in that position. I think we should also be allowed the benefits of peacetime prosperity.
I wish the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) were here this evening. Sometimes in his homespun way he has a knack for shedding light, good sense, and reason on a subject. I must say that if I had to choose between running to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) or to the Minister of Agriculture, to talk about some crippling injuries, I would be more apt to talk to the Minister of Agriculture and ask for his help. I hoped he would be here this evening.
I suggest that the government's proposal will lead to the ruination of our industry because the transport subsidy is to be swept away. It will either bring about the ruination of our industry, or the "rumination" of agriculture. I say this as the Minister of Agriculture, God bless him, said that studies were being carried on. Perhaps my question involves the most elaborate Latin based pun this House has heard for at least a couple of dozen years. It will be "ruination or rumination".
Are we depending on studies now under way in the Department of Agriculture? If so, what instruction has been given to those carrying out the studies? Will they lead to meaningful action for dealing with a pretty serious problem, one that, as I said a week ago, has ramifications involving $100 million of Canadian economic activity?
Finally, let me ask this: as the Minister of Agriculture has spoken of studies by the Department of Agriculture, should not those studies have come first, and government policy afterwards? Could not the studies have pointed to some method of substituting something for a model program inaugurated by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in 1960, and carried on and modified successfully by programs put forward by another prime minister, the late Mr. Pearson?

I ask these questions and am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not here to answer. It seems to me that somehow the late show becomes a little debased when answers are put in the hands of people to be read and no meaningful action is taken. I say that sincerely and with regret to the hon. gentleman opposite who, I am sure, is going to answer.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I answered last evening the question just put by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I would like to add that I will convey to the minister the flattering remarks that were made.
I must also apologize for the minister. He is unable to be in the House this evening because, as we are aware, tomorrow he must announce the dairy policy for next year. He is now attending a meeting, and probably at midnight he will still be discussing the dairy policy to be announced tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. The fact that we already had to answer three questions on the late show concerning the problem raised by the hon. member tends to show how important the matter is.
Since I had to answer it yesterday and the answer has not substantially changed today, I give him yesterday's answer. Hopefully the hon. member will understand that as parliamentary secretary, I must transmit the answers given by the department. I know the minister considered the matter quite thoroughly and he may be in a better position to answer it tomorrow, with a somewhat better knowledge of the question, because he is now involved in the milk problem.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further answer than the one I gave yesterday. At the start, rates to that point or east of that point were intended, among other things, to maintain the competitive position of Canadian exports relative to those of the United States. The American rates have increased substantially since then, and it now seems it would be preferable to have in Canada a totally compensatory level of subsidy. However, since the subsidy has been in force for some time already, its cancellation will require some degree of adaptation for flour exporters.
As the Minister of Agriculture said, most countries try to mill their own wheat. To the extent that Canada tries to replace part of its flour exports by wheat exports, we therefore did not lose those markets. The world export markets of inferior quality flour subsidized by the European Economic Community is taking over an increasingly large part of the world market. In spite of considerable activity on the part of the PL480, even American sales have considerably diminished in recent years.
Canadian flour exports can be broken up in three categories:	first, commercial exports, second, government
exports, and third, Russian-Cuban exports. As we know, most of our sales are to Cuba. The removal of the subsidy will not affect these sales in 1976. On the long term, it is expected that Cuba will mill an increasing part of its wheat. In the meantime, the government will continue its efforts to keep this market.
Commercial sales and sales to the Canadian government made up the rest of our flour exports, or about 25 per cent.
March 30, 1976

Sales to the government will probably remain at their present level, whatever happens to the subsidy. Commercial sales could be affected. However, the National Association of Canadian Millers was unable to convince us of the importance of these consequences. The Department of Agriculture is keeping a close eye on the situation and if other developments occur, it will take the necessary action.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-REQUEST FOR MORE LOCAL PROGRAMMING-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on March 23 I brought to the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) the growing concern across Canada regarding the centralization policy of the CBC. I asked him whether there would be a re-evaluation of that program to allow greater latitude for local programs within the Corporation. The Secretary of State answered with his usual cynical and bombastic brevity, which is the last refuge of the insecure and inept and incompetent. He said, "Does the hon. member not know that we have just finished putting up a brand new building in Vancouver and are planning one for Regina?"
I came across a statement made by the president of the CBC which reads as follows-this is with regard to culture: "That is what the CBC is all about-interpreting Canada to Canadians and contributing to their cultural vitality". That is both encouraging and disturbing. It is encouraging if it means the broad exposure of the various elements which make up Canadian society, that is, the ethnic, cultural, economic, and other factors which compose our society, to other segments of Canadian life. Let the people speak for themselves; let them be exposed to every other sector of the country, and let the audiences see and hear. This ought to be the objective of the corporation, and if this is the goal of the CBC and of its president, it is encouraging. It is discouraging if it means that a few elitist directors and producers in Toronto are to decide what we can see and hear.
I would bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a statement made by Mr. Gordon Hill, the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, with regard to the cutting back of the program Radio Noon to 15 minutes from the former length of one hour. He said:
We are tired of the fooling around by the top brass of the CBC who have allowed the citizen-owned radio and television networks to become a hive of protest for anarchists.
It seems it is the goal of the top echelon of the CBC to replace what in their estimation is the mundane and the ordinary with what is culturally proper. Maybe the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ought to be renamed the Toronto Broadcasting Corporation.
Recently I received a letter from a farm broadcaster in the prairies who is concerned that they are losing their broadcasts there. As one writer put it, producers who want to put out programs must crawl on their bellies in Toronto; sometimes they get something, but more often they don't.
Those responsible for regional programs are continually being harassed either by interference or by being placed on
Adjournment Debate
a pauper's budget. For example, a program on the West Coast called "Klahanie," which is a nature program well received by the public, gets a budget of $2,000. Take the case of "The Beachcombers." Toronto writers are always being foisted on that program in the west, and old John Hirsch in Toronto wants to give that story an editor from Toronto. He even wants to bring in casting from Toronto for that totally British Columbia region program. The final disgrace is that as of April 1, 1977, British Columbia will no longer have a regionally-produced 10 p.m. regional news hour. That will come from Toronto, too. Toronto knows best.
I am sure the Secretary of State has heard of the British Columbia Committee for CBC Reform which has recently been established by friends of the corporation, people who believe in the system, who like what it has done in the past but who are fearful of the trend which is developing.
The people who belong to this organization are not redeyed radicals but responsible Canadians, and for the edification of the parliamentary secretary who is here on behalf of the Secretary of State I should like to read a few of the names of members of that committee, to mention, for example, Barry Broadfoot, of whom, I am sure, many hon. members have heard. Then there is Roderick Haig-Brown, a writer and naturalist of Campbell River; Barry Leach, director of environmental studies of the Douglas College, New Westminster; Dorothy Livesay, a well-known writer from Victoria; Grace Maclnnis, a former member of parliament and supporter of the CBC; Ian McTaggart-Cowan, professor and consultant of Vancouver; Robin Skelton, writer and editor of the Malahat Review, Victoria; Simon Streatfeild, of North Vancouver, a conductor who is very well known in music circles in Vancouver; Victor White, who is director, special projects, of the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra.
These people are not the red-eyed radicals usually associated with protests; they are people concerned about the direction being taken by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They have succeeded in their work. You can call it local colour if you will, but it is legitimate local colour.
Let me come back to the minister's answer. He said:
One of the more significant things the corporation has done in the last two years has been to decentralize, and this is manifest by new buildings in Vancouver-
Where in the world did he ever get the idea to decentralize an operation by putting up a new building? Surely even this naive minister ought to understand that the heart of any broadcasting system lies in the producers, the directors, and the casting of each of the individual programs. To think that a new building will fill that role shows the naivete of this minister.
I challenge him to re-evaluate this "divine aegis" of the members of the staff in Toronto and to let some of the people from the regions act with the wisdom that is inherent in those regions. Let them project some of the idioms, colour and idiosyncracies, values and concerns, of the localities, and let the people of Canada know what they are.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the

March 30, 1976
Adjournment Debate
CBC that it is erroneous to say that the CBC is encouraging centralization of production. If it were so, the CBC would not have built a multi-million dollar broadcast centre in Vancouver; it would not be building new production facilities in Calgary; and it would not be planning to build a new production centre in Regina-Moose Jaw. In the next four to five years the CBC will spend $128 million to improve its production facilities outside of Toronto and Montreal. This is all being done in order to improve and increase regional and local programs and to increase regional participation in network programming.
Because of the availability of the CBC's new B.C. broadcast centre, for example, it is planned to increase the production of network television programs in Vancouver from 175.5 hours per year in 1975-76 to 208.5 hours in 1976-77. Local and regional activity can be examined from the point of view of broadcast hours and contribution to the network schedule. The figures for broadcast hours per week on the English AM radio network of the CBC show that 40 per cent of the hours of programming in the schedules of most CBC AM radio stations is local and regional.
The complexity of television is such that it is a much more expensive medium than radio, and requires less flexible scheduling with fewer local periods. Nevertheless, local and regional programming time on CBC English language television stations varies from 18 per cent to 35 per cent of the telecast time per annum of the stations, not all of which, it must be admitted, can be employed for locally produced programs, and this for reasons of budget only.
As for the contribution of CBC owned and operated stations to the national networks, in radio the percentage of network programming from all regions of Canada to the
CBC English AM radio network is 44 per cent and in the case of FM radio it is 59 per cent.
In English television an analysis made for the fiscal year 1973-74 showed that the percentage of network programs produced outside of Toronto, including program inserts, came to 32.3 per cent.
In addition, the CBC has for many years encouraged the exchange of local programs between stations and the effect of this exchange is to discourage centralization. In 1975, for example, 79 episodes of four local television series produced in British Columbia were seen on up to 15 other stations across Canada. Conversely, 169 episodes from 15 locations other than Toronto were seen in British Columbia.
In the light of the size and diversity of Canada much has been accomplished, but further decentralization of programming, particularly in the complex and expensive medium of television, can only be accomplished with the availability of more money to be spent on Canadian talent. The CBC is endeavouring to encourage and develop talent in all parts of Canada. If more money were available for the production of quality programs, regional studios could-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please-


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I know that my time has expired. However, I should just like to say to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) that anything further he would like to say on this he can bring to the standing committee when the estimates-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary as her allotted time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.43 p.m.

Wednesday, March 31, 1976